ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

WORK AND PENSIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Employment and Support Allowance (Appeals)

Natascha Engel: How many people have found work following a refusal of an appeal for employment and support allowance.

Chris Grayling: The Department does not hold statistics specifically on destinations after appeals, but we carried out a detailed report, published earlier this year, on the destinations of people on jobseeker’s allowance, income support and ESA. Individuals found fit for work by the tribunal may claim jobseeker’s allowance. Jobcentre Plus will provide employment support, or the claimant can access support through the Work programme at a time that is right for them.

Natascha Engel: Our experience in Derbyshire is of people moving from the employment support allowance on to jobseeker’s allowance, and not into work. What is the Minister doing to move people off the employment support allowance and not on to another benefit, but into work?

Chris Grayling: Of course, the purpose of the Work programme is to provide specialist back-to-work support. Those moving off ESA have early access to the Work programme, and those still on it can volunteer for the programme at any time, if they are not mandated to it.

Peter Lilley: Given that there are now 400,000 more jobs in the economy, the bulk of which have been taken by people who, by and large, are not eligible for benefits, because they are workers from abroad, might not loss of entitlement to benefit—for good cause—spur some people to get jobs and thus result in more jobs going to British people?

Chris Grayling: I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. I have made it clear that I would like employers in this country to offer opportunities to local workers, but those workers need to be there—they need to be keen, energetic and wanting that work. I hope and expect that our Work programme providers will provide that energisation.

Tom Greatrex: The Minister will know that, as well as the people looking for work following a refusal of appeal, many people win their appeal. Having won an appeal, however, they then have another work capability assessment, but the information that led to their appeal being won is not made available to the people undertaking the second WCA. Will he look at this situation in order to prevent people from going through a cycle of assessment, followed by appeal, followed by assessment?

Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman will know that the system set up by the previous Labour Government set a prognosis time for an individual—an estimate of how long before they could return to work. It is that, rather than anything else, which guides the timetable for repeat assessments. I have taken steps to stretch that
	timetable post-appeal, but I do not want to leave people stranded on benefits for the rest of their lives if we can possibly help them find employment.

David Ruffley: The Minister will be aware of the 1996 personal responsibility Act, passed by President Clinton, which limited an individual’s entitlement to out-of-work benefits to a period of five years over their lifetime, and which, according to American research, cut the welfare roll by 60%. Will he follow that model?

Chris Grayling: I studied that model carefully. One reason why we have adopted various programmes requiring people to undertake full-time work is to create a sense of urgency for them in finding employment. I am not convinced, however, that government is good enough at managing data to manage, for long periods—many decades—at a time, the kind of systems set up in the United States.

Stephen Timms: The Minister did not provide the data that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) asked for. He holds the parliamentary record for the abuse of statistics, having been rebuked for three separate offences by the UK Statistics Authority. Will he now sort out the shambles in his Department, do what he promised in January and lift the Work programme data ban?

Chris Grayling: The right hon. Gentleman does talk a lot of nonsense sometimes. First, he cannot add up—I have not been rebuked three times by the Statistics Authority. Secondly, the Work programme is progressing well, and I will publish further data on it soon.

Stephen Timms: Until today, the Government have told us that benefit reform plus the Work programme would sort out the welfare system, but this morning the Prime Minister said that they will not be enough. Will Ministers now sort out this chaos? Would not lifting the ban on data be a good place to start?

Chris Grayling: Let me give the right hon. Gentleman one piece of data: 80,000 fewer people are on out-of-work benefits today than when his party was in power.

State Pension

Philip Hollobone: What steps he is taking to introduce a flat-rate state pension for new pensioners.

Peter Aldous: What steps he is taking to introduce a flat-rate state pension.

Steve Webb: The Chancellor confirmed in Budget 2012 that the Government will introduce a simpler, single-tier pension for future pensioners set above the basic level of the means test to better support saving for retirement—and I am pleased to say that the Prime Minister has reiterated that commitment today.

Philip Hollobone: Will the Minister assure the House that, were such a scheme to come in, existing pensioners would not be permanently disadvantaged relative to
	new pensioners? If that is the case, is it possible to explain it in plain and straightforward language so that everyone can understand it?

Steve Webb: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We need to explain what are often very complex matters in simple language. The simple truth is that today’s pensioners have got the best deal in a generation through the restoration of the earnings link, which will be real cash in their pockets year after year, and that the new system will cost no more than was going to be spent in any case. We are taking a planned budget, simplifying the system, but not treating anyone adversely.

Peter Aldous: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, but there is real anxiety among current pensioners that with the introduction of the single-tier pension they will become second-class citizens. Will he give an assurance and take that point on board?

Steve Webb: I do appreciate that point. It is often not well understood that pensioners coming down the track—tomorrow’s pensioners—are due to receive substantially higher pensions on average without our reform because the state system has been maturing. Our reforms are not doing that—it is in the system anyway—but our reforms do take the money and simplify so that today’s workers have a simpler system into which to retire.

Frank Field: Will the Minister give an undertaking that those coming down the track—[Interruption.] I am already there; I am one of those pensioners being discriminated against. Will he give an undertaking that those who would be entitled to a higher pension than his flat-rate pension would provide will get the entitlement that they have paid for and not his lower flat-rate pension?

Steve Webb: I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that the next generation of pensioners will be well looked after and specifically that the starting point for our calculation will be what people have in the bank—that is to say, rights already accrued—and specifically, therefore, if people are heading for a pension of more than £140 at the point we change it and have got that in the bank, it will be respected.

Gregg McClymont: We are hearing from all sides today concern and anxiety about the move to a flat-rate, single-tier state pension. In order to end that anxiety and to answer these questions, will the Minister confirm that a White Paper will be published on this reform? Will he tell us when it will appear?

Steve Webb: I am pleased to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that a White Paper is under active preparation and will be produced.

Work Capability Test (Cancer)

Helen Goodman: What his policy is on the application of the work capability test to people with cancer; and if he will make a statement.

Chris Grayling: We are committed to supporting people who are diagnosed with cancer in the most sensitive, fair and appropriate way. We are currently analysing responses from our informal consultation on the effects of cancer treatment and will publish a consultation response later in the summer. However, we have already put in place changes that have increased the range of cancer patients who receive ongoing unconditional support.

Helen Goodman: My constituent was treated for breast cancer in July 2010. She was deemed fit for work by Atos before the post-op results were received. The tribunal found in her favour and awarded her employment and support allowance in January 2012. However, her ESA entitlement was stopped in April because of the introduction of the Government’s 365 day rule. She was reassessed in May 2012 and found fit for work again. Her employer has held her job open but cannot re-employ her until she is deemed fit for work by her doctor. This is obviously extremely bad for her health. Will the Minister agree to meet me about this case?

Chris Grayling: It is obviously very difficult to talk about an individual case, and I am afraid that I make it a matter of policy that Ministers do not become involved in individual cases. What I would say is that it is extremely important that we provide support for all cancer sufferers who can potentially return to work to do so at the earliest opportunity. That is much better for them than being stuck at home on benefits.

Andrew Bridgen: As a result of the Government’s review, will the Minister confirm that there is now much better understanding of cancer treatments, and that many people undergoing oral chemotherapy, for example, will now be placed automatically in a support group, which did not happen previously?

Chris Grayling: It is absolutely our intention to include for the first time people going through oral chemotherapy in the support group. The actual detail will be resolved in the review that is being carried out at the moment. We shall publish the outcome later in the summer. I stress again that this Government have broadened the range of cancer patients in the support group who receive long-term unconditional support until they are potentially able to make a return to work.

Jobseeker Training

Mary Macleod: What recent discussions he has had on training for jobseekers.

Chris Grayling: I have regular meetings with the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to discuss provision for the unemployed. We believe that we have forged a closer partnership between the two Departments than has existed in the past. We want to ensure that all unemployed people who have a skills gap receive the support that they need in order to fill that gap and return to work.

Mary Macleod: Starting new businesses could generate real growth for the UK economy and create more jobs. I recently held a seminar in Hounslow on entrepreneurship for women to encourage them to accept the start-up challenge. What is my right hon. Friend doing to encourage jobseekers to become entrepreneurs, and to help them acquire the skills that will enable them to succeed?

Chris Grayling: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that she has done, not only in holding the seminar but in organising an extremely successful jobs fair to help her unemployed constituents to find work. I believe that, through the launch of the new enterprise allowance, we have created a mechanism that will allow unemployed women in particular, and also unemployed older workers, to move into self-employment. They have a wealth of experience to bring to it, and I hope that the allowance will create a bridge, supported by mentoring, to enable them to do so.

David Hanson: Training and benefit levels are inexorably linked by the Government. This morning the Prime Minister said that regional variations in benefit rates would affect areas such as mine in Wales, the north of England and Scotland much more than areas elsewhere. Will the Minister tell us whether he supports that, and whether it is supported by his hon. Friend the Pensions Minister?

Chris Grayling: I congratulate Opposition Front Benchers: this is one area in which they have made a major contribution to the debate. It was the Labour party that began the argument about the regionalisation of benefits. It was entirely sensible for the Prime Minister to take up that challenge, and we should have a proper national debate about whether this is the right approach for the future.

Stephen Lloyd: I welcome what the Minister has said about training. Does he agree, irrespective of certain quite loud noises off that have been heard recently, that the coalition is making the fundamental changes that will ensure that work always pays in future? That is a policy that I heartily endorse.

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The universal credit, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is pioneering and which will be launched next year, will make a huge difference. As for the skills agenda, one of the coalition’s other achievements is the big expansion of apprenticeships. That is making a real difference to the prospects of unemployed people, particularly young unemployed people, giving them a chance to build up skills that can lead to a lasting career.

Kerry McCarthy: The recent scandal involving the unpaid jubilee steward has exposed the fact that some companies out there, under the guise of offering training to Work programme participants, are exploiting them as cheap or unpaid labour. What checks does the Minister carry out on companies that use Work programme participants?

Chris Grayling: I must say that I think it is pretty poor when the eventuality of a bus arriving two hours early is turned into a scandal by the Labour party. In
	fact, as part of a training and development programme, a group of volunteers were participating in a national experience that would build skills which could take them into other employment. I think that the hon. Lady should welcome that and not criticise it.

Karen Bradley: What support is available to 16 and 17-year-olds who are released from young offender institutions such as the one in Werrington, in my constituency, to ensure that they receive the training that they need so that they can get back on the right track?

Chris Grayling: That is an important issue. One of the challenges that we face is that 16 and 17-year-olds are often not on benefits. Together with the Department for Education, we are introducing a new programme, which will begin in autumn and will be funded by Payment by Results, to engage, support and develop the skills of that particular cohort of young people. We cannot abandon them, as has happened far too often in the past.

Benefit Claimants (Medical Assessments)

Kevin Brennan: What steps he plans to take to improve the quality of medical assessments of benefit claimants.

Maria Miller: We asked Professor Harrington to carry out a series of reviews of the work capability assessment, and have implemented the recommendations of his first review. We are continuing to work closely with him, and are ensuring that lessons learnt from the assessment are built into the design of the new personal independence payment.

Kevin Brennan: Why are so many of these assessments overturned on appeal?

Maria Miller: As the hon. Gentleman will know, there were problems with the system that we inherited. It was a harsh system, which we have been working hard to make work better, and I hope he will join us in supporting Professor Harrington’s work in this area, which is leaving us with a work capability assessment that better serves the people of this country.

Work Experience

Stephen Hammond: What recent assessment he has made of the benefits for jobseekers of undertaking work experience.

Stephen Metcalfe: What recent assessment he has made of the benefits for jobseekers of undertaking work experience.

Eric Ollerenshaw: What recent assessment he has made of the benefits for jobseekers of undertaking work experience.

Jackie Doyle-Price: What recent assessment he has made of the benefits for jobseekers of undertaking work experience.

Angie Bray: What recent assessment he has made of the benefits for jobseekers of undertaking work experience.

Iain Duncan Smith: Early analysis shows that approximately half of participants are off benefit within 21 weeks of starting a work experience placement. I am delighted that, despite a campaign run by anarchists and members of the Labour party, just like hon. Gentlemen on the Benches opposite me, to try to blight the chances of these young people, employers continue to come forward to join this excellent scheme. Young people have overwhelmingly shown that they want this valuable experience by continuing to volunteer to do their part.

Stephen Hammond: It is good news that young people and people on work experience schemes come off them within 21 weeks. How does that compare with the new deal set up by the previous Government?

Iain Duncan Smith: It compares very favourably. First, it is better. Secondly, it costs a lot less. Labour paid huge sums of money up front, whereas we pay the jobseeker’s allowance. The key point is that not once has any Opposition Front-Bench Member got up to defend this work experience programme, which many of their colleagues attack and try to destroy.

Stephen Metcalfe: Will my right hon. Friend remind us how long a young person can stay on the work experience scheme before they lose their benefit, and how that compares with the situation under the previous Government?

Iain Duncan Smith: This is the interesting bit, because the previous Government legislated for work experience before they left office and now attack it, but they allowed people only two weeks, which was not enough time for them to get the experience they needed. We have given people two months, and a third month if the employer offers them either an apprenticeship or a job.

Eric Ollerenshaw: Does the Secretary of State agree that, much like work experience for students in education, work experience for the unemployed plays a vital role in their securing the right habits in order to secure full-time employment eventually?

Iain Duncan Smith: Yes, and one interesting fact is that although the ex-Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Prescott, attacked the scheme that had some difficulties in relation to young people learning and training, it turns out that the vast majority of them wanted to do it. Moreover, they got an experience that has allowed them to go after jobs at the Olympic park paying over £9 an hour, which they would not have had an opportunity to do if the Opposition had had their way.

Jackie Doyle-Price: Clearly, young people in particular will benefit from being able to acquire and demonstrate skills that are of value in the workplace. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should be doing everything we can to encourage employers to give similar placements?

Iain Duncan Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend. One of the big problems we had was that some people, including the Labour party and those anarchists, have tried to stop those companies from doing that. I sometimes get confused as to who the anarchists are and who the Labour party members are when I look at the Opposition line-up, but the reality is that this is good for the young people who do it; it is good in terms of their experience; and they actually ask for it in the first place.

Angie Bray: When travelling around my constituency, I have been very struck by how enthusiastic young people are to get work experience. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite what the cynics say, young people are very keen to get work experience because they know that it helps prepare them for a real job?

Iain Duncan Smith: I agree. Actually it is so good that they volunteer for it; I wonder whether we should run a work experience programme for those on the Opposition Front Bench.

Barry Sheerman: It is very difficult for Opposition Members to get a word in on this one. Is not the Secretary of State being rather silly, because most people know that if the work experience is of high quality and does not displace other people’s jobs, we are all in favour of it? Is it not about time that all of us on both sides of the House made sure that we had decent schemes for young people, which are of high quality and lead to jobs?

Iain Duncan Smith: I respect the hon. Gentleman and I am grateful for those comments; I wish that everybody else on his side of the House approached this issue with the same attitude. Work experience has resulted in about half those going on to it getting off the benefits roll. They want to do it—this is really important—and what they are getting from it is experience they cannot otherwise get. Employers say to people time and again, “We can’t employ you because you don’t have experience,” yet they could not get that experience. Surely this has got to be a good thing for them and a good thing for all of us.

Kate Green: I, too, support good quality work experience that genuinely enhances employability, but as the Secretary of State seeks to roll out this initiative, what steps are his Department taking to ensure that high quality is maintained and that such work experience does not become a way for employers to churn cheap labour at the bottom?

Iain Duncan Smith: Of course, the hon. Lady is absolutely right, and the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), is absolutely focusing on this issue with Jobcentre Plus. If we hear of any programmes that are not in that category, we will not allow young people to go on them. However, the key thing to bear in mind here is that this gives young people a real chance to get something they can sell to an employer. We should all back that, and I wish that more people were like the hon. Members who have just spoken.

Sheila Gilmore: The questioners on the Government Benches asked about recent assessment of work experience, but the Secretary of State responded
	by talking about figures that he has been punting for several months now. Has he carried out any further assessment since the pilot project that produced those figures, which is nearly a year old now, given that the only other published assessment, of mandatory work experience, suggested that it did not work?

Iain Duncan Smith: We published these figures two months ago, but if the hon. Lady really wants to press me, I hear anecdotally from those in the Work programme that it is even better.

Gisela Stuart: The Secretary of State may be interested to hear that Birmingham Labour went into the local election campaign promising work experience, so it is wrong to say that the Opposition are against it. However, the purpose of all this is to get people into work, and that requires a skills base. Has he assessed how much of the extra training of some people within companies is merely replacing what they are already doing, and how much is genuinely new commitment by companies to the training of young people?

Iain Duncan Smith: We believe that the programmes brought forward to us, and which these young people are volunteering for, constitute genuine experience that they will gain and that the companies were not necessarily providing before. Of course, I fully accept that we want to ensure that those are high quality, and I congratulate the hon. Lady, not for the first time, on genuinely looking at this issue from the point of view of the problem and how we solve it. I wish there were more people doing that, but the trouble is that Opposition Front Benchers absolutely do not attack those who spend their time trying to destroy the work experience programme.

Ian Austin: We introduced mandatory work experience under the flexible new deal and we support, as we have heard from a number of my hon. Friends, proper work experience that leads to jobs. However, why did the Secretary of State scrap our scheme and instead pour millions into a mandatory work activity scheme that his own Department says has no impact? Should he not sort out this shambles before announcing his next set of half-baked changes?

Iain Duncan Smith: I see that the Opposition have discovered one word that they can now all say because it is not too long for them: shambles. The only shambles that we see is what is going on on their Front Bench. The reality is that we did not persist with the two-week work experience programme because all the young people told us that it did not work—they needed more time. That is what you do: when you hear the truth from people who need your support, you act on it, like we did, and give them that extra time.

Social Security (European Commission)

Richard Graham: What recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on the influence of the European Commission on UK social security policies.

Neil Parish: What recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on the influence of the European Commission on UK social security policies.

Chris Grayling: I continue to have concerns about the efforts of the European Commission to increase its influence over the social security policies adopted by national Governments. I am working closely with European colleagues to resist encroachment on our national welfare systems, and last week met with some of them to discuss this. I am determined that social security should remain a national matter, and will continue to resist efforts by the EU to interfere.

Richard Graham: I am very grateful to the Minister, who has almost answered my question. Does he share my view that social security policy should be left entirely to member states, and what does he believe that we can do in practice to ensure that that is the case?

Chris Grayling: I think that it has to be overwhelming pressure from member states. The Austrians, for example, are now facing a case in the European Court that would have a similar impact on them as the court cases we are facing in this country. I increasingly find that other member states are recognising that this is a problem. The best way for us to deal with it quickly is to work together to get the Commission to rethink policy totally on this front and to do what member states believe is right.

Neil Parish: My experience, Minister, of the European Commission is that it always wants to seek more powers, so I welcome your answer but I think you need to redouble your efforts to make sure that we do not hand over social security policy to the Commission.

Mr Speaker: May I point out gently to the hon. Gentleman that I have provided no answer and am making no efforts, but that the Minister might be able to answer?

Chris Grayling: I am absolutely clear that we have to get the Commission to change. It is, after all, part of a collection of member states, all of which believe that the current direction of travel is wrong. We have to win battles in the Commission, the Parliament and the European Court. I will not hesitate to take legal action in the European Court wherever we have grounds for arguing that the Commission is acting against the terms of the Lisbon treaty and its predecessors.

Remploy

Ian Lavery: What progress has been made in transferring Remploy factories to social enterprises.

Virendra Sharma: What progress has been made in transferring Remploy factories to social enterprises.

Maria Miller: Within the commercial process Remploy has encouraged any proposals for the
	businesses, including bids that are social enterprise models. I, and DWP officials, have met social enterprise organisations, and I have also announced that funding of up to £10,000 is available to support employee-led proposals, including social enterprises. That money can be used for expert advice and support, including legal and accountancy support.

Ian Lavery: Many social enterprises feel as though they have been totally excluded from the consultation at Remploy. The consultation period has been an utter shambles; it has been chaos and confusion from day one. As a result, will the Minister consider restarting the consultation period in the best interests of the disabled people at Remploy?

Maria Miller: The hon. Gentleman and I have a shared objective of wanting to make sure that we work together with people affected by these announcements, and I do not think he would want to create any situation where we had to continue with this period of uncertainty for any longer than we already have. He is wrong to say that we should rerun this consultation; it is going forward in the way that it should. We have received 65 expressions of interest for Remploy businesses, and I am looking forward to working with those individuals and those organisations to see how many of those bids we can take forward.

Virendra Sharma: Will the Minister advise the House as to how many organisations have been consulted so far and how many people were involved in that consultation?

Maria Miller: The process that we have been undertaking involves all the individuals affected by the announcements that we have made. I have made it plain to the Remploy board that communication through this period of 90 days is very important; we have put a great deal of emphasis on that. Under the previous Administration, 29 factories were closed and none of them was taken forward outside Government control, whereas we are working hard and we have received 65 expressions of interest for Remploy businesses to move outside Government control. The House should welcome that.

Paul Maynard: Does the Minister recall that the Sayce review stated clearly that there was “total consensus” among disabled charities and organisations that Remploy factories were
	“not a model for the 21st century”?
	Does the Minister agree that placing a concrete cap on the aspirations of disabled people, as some Labour Members wish to do, is morally wrong?

Maria Miller: I have to applaud my hon. Friend for saying things that Labour Members sometimes do not agree with. He is very courageous in that. The Government have set out their commitment to equality. It would not be right for us to see an increase in the amount of money being spent on segregated employment if we have equality at the centre of our thoughts—and we do.

Separated Parents

Charlie Elphicke: What steps he is taking to help separated parents resolve maintenance and contact problems.

Maria Miller: It is unacceptable that only 50% of children in separated families benefit from an effective child maintenance arrangement. That is why we are fundamentally reforming the chid maintenance system, and it is also why we recently launched our consultation on shared parenting.

Charlie Elphicke: To turn to the issue of contact, does the Minister agree that it is a fundamental right of every child to know and have a relationship with both parents, and that parents who stand in the way of that right are abusing the rights of their children?

Maria Miller: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he has done in this area and for his private Member’s Bill. He is absolutely right that all the evidence shows that children who maintain contact with both parents have a much better outlook on life. We are considering not only shared parenting in our consultation, but how we can help more families to work together on child maintenance outside the statutory system in a way that will help them work together on all the issues around a child’s life.

Catherine McKinnell: Does the Minister think that making it more difficult and more expensive for parents to access their maintenance payments will make life easier or more difficult for children of separated parents?

Maria Miller: The hon. Lady will know that today we have announced a £15 million scheme to put in place the sort of support that I know she would want for separated parents, so that they can work together more effectively. I do not agree with her that our proposals will do anything other than make life better for children in separated families by ensuring that more money is flowing to them, whether that is inside the statutory system or outside it.

Tessa Munt: To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), does the Minister agree that it is essential that children automatically have access to both their parents, and that should not be the case only when it is proven to be unsafe? Up until now, the Government’s wording has been that it should happen when it is safe, but it should be only when it is unsafe that it should not.

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There should be a presumption of a meaningful relationship with both parents post-separation, and the proposals we are working on for child maintenance will underline that by helping parents to realise that it is their responsibility to work together to support their children, whether they are in a relationship together or whether they are living apart.

Peter Bone: The Minister announced today that £14 million is being spent, partly on an app that can be downloaded by couples who are thinking of splitting up,
	“to help them through the painful process of separation.”
	Will she confirm that the first two people to download it were the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is potentially selling short our announcement today. Indeed, working with all the leading charitable and third sector organisations in the sector, we are looking for new ways to ensure that we have the appropriate support in place for families, whether through telephony, local face-to-face support or a web application. Perhaps Mrs Bone might like to take a look at that and give me her views, too.

Work Capability Assessments (Appeal Tribunals)

Pamela Nash: How many people are waiting for appeal tribunals on the outcome of work capability assessments.

Madeleine Moon: How many people are waiting for appeal tribunals on the outcome of work capability assessments.

Chris Grayling: At 31 December 2011, the latest date for which data have been published, 63,500 appeals were outstanding in which the work capability assessment was a factor, down from 84,100 in October 2010. There are always a number of live appeals at the various stages of processing before being listed for a tribunal hearing.

Pamela Nash: The fact that 63,500 people are in limbo is a disgrace, and waiting for appeal results is damaging people’s health, particularly those who have mental health problems. What is the Minister doing to try to rectify the situation, and when can we expect waiting times for appeals to be at a reasonable level?

Chris Grayling: I think that the hon. Lady has misunderstood the situation. There will always be people who are waiting for appeals. If they put in an appeal submission today, they will not have a tribunal hearing this afternoon. There is always a gap to allow everyone involved to prepare for the hearing itself. We are doing everything we can to reduce the backlog of appeals, as we inherited a massive backlog two years ago from the previous Government. The figures I have just set out show that we have succeeded in reducing that. We have reduced it as far as possible, but there will always be people in the pipeline waiting for appeals, because they simply do not happen on the same day as the application goes in.

Madeleine Moon: My constituent, Mrs W, was placed in a work capability assessment group on 7 April. She appealed and waited until September when she was successful, like 40% of those who appeal. Shortly afterwards, she was recalled for a further assessment. Will the Minister consider giving work capability assessments tribunals the ability not just to assess the rightness of decisions at the time they are made but to decide when the assessments need to be made, cutting the number of people in the revolving door, waiting for appeals?

Chris Grayling: The hon. Lady will know that when the present system was set up by the previous Government, they built in a system of prognosis times, which set a rough estimate of the next time an assessment should be held. As I said, I have now taken steps to lengthen
	that period when somebody has been through an appeal, but she should be under no illusion: the system she talks about is the one set up by her own party.

Duncan Hames: The Minister should know that, at the end of last year, more than twice as many people as the Courts and Tribunals Service’s target figure were having to wait more than six months for appeals, at a cost to the Ministry of Justice of more than £40 million in the first year of this Government. When the tendering process for assessments for personal independence payments begins, will he seek options to ensure that any contractor that partners with the Government takes its share of the risk and of meeting the costs of decisions that are overturned on appeal?

Chris Grayling: The decision-making process lies within Jobcentre Plus and the decision makers work to a template established by the Department for Work and Pensions, but the reality is that under the Human Rights Act 1998, passed by the previous Government, the courts have decided that everyone has a right to appeal, and if people do not like the decision made, whether it is right or wrong, a large number will choose to appeal. We will do everything we can to get the decisions right, but we will not be able to stop people appealing.

Unemployment and Housing Benefit Costs

William Bain: If he will estimate the likely change in unemployment and housing benefit costs in 2015 compared with estimates made in the 2010 autumn statement.

Iain Duncan Smith: In 2015-16, we expect to spend around £220 billion on benefits and personal tax credits. That includes an estimate of spending on jobseeker's allowance and housing benefit which, taking account of the latest assumptions from the Office for Budget Responsibility, is around £1.4 billion higher than was expected in 2010.

William Bain: Is not the truth that just one in eight of housing benefit recipients are unemployed and that 93% of new claimants are in households struggling in low-paid work, with falling real wages but paying soaring rents to largely private sector landlords? Instead of forcing 380,000 young people under 25 back in with their parents or onto the streets, should not the Government be dealing with surging rent rises, building social housing and introducing a proper living wage, to deal with the biggest squeeze on living standards for 90 years?

Iain Duncan Smith: Can I remind the hon. Gentleman which Government introduced the local housing allowance, as a direct result of which rents rocketed? As for our changes to housing benefit, the latest report, published about a week ago, shows that only about 1% of those affected have to move; a third have now said that they will seek work, which is a positive effect; and something near a half have not seen any rent rises or negotiated them downwards, so rents have been falling.

Philip Davies: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing the benefits cap. Can he give more details of what has happened since housing benefit was capped? Also, in the light of the Prime
	Minister’s speech today, will he commit the Government to consider reducing the benefits cap from £26,000, which my constituents think is still far too high?

Iain Duncan Smith: I shall certainly relay my hon. Friend’s views to the Prime Minister as part of the overall review. When we made the changes to housing benefit, we were attacked by the Opposition for “social cleansing” and all those dangerous things we were supposed to be dealing in—[ Interruption. ] No, no, by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) and his team. On the one hand, his team accuse us of social cleansing; on the other, he accused me the other day of not cutting deep enough on housing benefit. The only shambles here is their position on housing benefit.

Jack Dromey: A million young people are out of work. Now, the Prime Minister wants to deny housing benefit to under-25s, pushing thousands into becoming homeless and punishing workers on low pay or in an apprenticeship who need housing benefit to keep a roof over their head. Does the Secretary of State agree with the chief executive of the YMCA, who says it is
	“difficult…to think in our 168-year history of a proposal more detrimental and having a negative impact”,
	and the chief executive of Crisis, who says that the Government are being “irresponsible” and should concentrate instead on creating badly needed jobs and building badly needed affordable homes?

Iain Duncan Smith: We are doing all those things. The housing benefit changes are necessary to bring back under control a budget that was spiralling under the Government the hon. Gentleman supported. In almost 10 years, we saw that budget rise from about £11 billion to £21 billion. That was madness, and it was their lack of control and their creation of the local housing allowance that led to that problem, so we will take no lectures from him or his hon. Friends about what is right or wrong in relation to housing benefit.

Mark Lazarowicz: How many young people under 25 does the Secretary of State think will lose their jobs as a result of the measures that his Prime Minister is proposing?

Iain Duncan Smith: I am not aware that any would lose their jobs. I am aware that, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), the housing benefit changes that we have introduced are already leading to a large number of those who were not in work now seeking work. That is the difference between us and the Opposition—we believe that these changes should be about helping people to become independent; they think welfare is about making people dependent on them.

Topical Questions

Marcus Jones: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Iain Duncan Smith: Today I am announcing the Department’s plans better to support jobseekers allowance claimants who are members of Her Majesty’s reserve forces. We
	plan to amend the JSA regulations with effect from next month so that claimants who are in the military reserve can attend their required 15-day annual training camp without having to terminate their claim. This will mean that Jobcentre Plus can actively encourage claimants to join the Territorial Army without facing unnecessary and burdensome administration difficulties.

Marcus Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend. In Nuneaton and the north of Warwickshire, unemployment has decreased since the last general election. Not being complacent, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) and I are running a jobs fair this Thursday, where a number of local and regional companies will be offering 220 jobs and 50 apprenticeship placements. Will my right hon. Friend welcome this and give a message of support and encouragement both to those companies and to the people in our constituencies looking for work?

Chris Grayling: I am very much aware of the event being held by my hon. Friend and his colleague. This is another great initiative by Members on the Government Benches. There have been a number of extremely successful jobs fairs. This one is poised to be another, with really good jobs on offer to unemployed people. I commend my hon. Friend enormously. I am grateful to all the organisations taking part. It is a credit to the community in his area that they are coming together to help the unemployed.

Liam Byrne: This morning the Secretary of State said on the “Today” programme that universal credit is on time and on budget. Can he confirm that to the House?

Iain Duncan Smith: Yes.

Liam Byrne: That is very interesting. The Minister with responsibility for unemployment told the House that all out-of-work benefits were supposed to be treated as universal credit applications from October 2013. The DWP newsletter from last month says that that now will not happen until mid-2014—nine months late. The project is supposed to cost £2 billion, but answers to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) say that it is £100 million over budget. Universal credit is not on time and it is not on budget, and the Secretary of State does not know what is going on in his own Department, so is it any surprise that the Prime Minister had to announce another revolution in welfare reform this morning? The last one appears to be collapsing into chaos.

Iain Duncan Smith: Universal credit is on time and on budget. This is so typical of the right hon. Gentleman. He knows that universal credit is a programme that will be introduced over four years. He needs to go and check his figures again. There is something rather pathetic about the way he pauses on little figures and seems to think that that spells something. Universal credit will do more to get people back to work and it will rectify the mess that the previous Government left. It is on time and it is on budget.

David Amess: How many fewer benefits are there for people who are out of work than there were at the last general election?

Chris Grayling: I am pleased to say that there are 80,000 fewer people on out-of-work benefits today than there were at the time of the general election. It is worth the Opposition noting that as regards youth unemployment, when we take into account all the policy changes that have taken place, and if we strip out the ways in which the previous Government hid people and kept them off the unemployment register, youth unemployment is down as well.

Nick Smith: A constituent has contacted me about a Work programme placement that is both unsupervised and offers no training. Is not the Minister worried that Work programme providers, such as A4e, deem that satisfactory?

Chris Grayling: If the Work programme providers do not deliver the right support, they will not be successful and they will not be paid. That is the joy of the system that we have put in place. The previous Government put hundreds and hundreds of millions of pounds up front into the pockets of providers. We make the providers put their own money up front in a commitment to deliver support to the long-term unemployed, get them into work and help them stay there.

Charlie Elphicke: Does the Minister agree that pensions tax and pensions means-testing help destroy our pensions system? What are the Government doing to ensure that it always pays to save for a pension?

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend is right that at the moment there is a concern that if people save small amounts of money, all they do is deprive themselves of means-tested benefits. That is why our state pension reform is absolutely essential to ensure that when people do save they are better off as a result, and we look forward to that being a firm foundation for auto-enrolment when it starts later this year.

Dave Watts: Is not the problem with the Government’s benefit to work programme the fact that due to economic policies and failures there are no jobs for people to go to? For every five vacancies, there are so many people chasing them that there is no chance of them getting work. When will the Government do something about growth so that people can get back into jobs?

Chris Grayling: We are working extremely hard to support our economy and to support businesses to encourage them to grow and develop. We have had some very good news in the past few weeks at Ellesmere Port, with Jaguar Land Rover, and in the north-east with the investments in Redcar. Those developments are all good news for jobs. Since the election, there are 400,000 more people in work in this country. Our challenge is to ensure that we get young British unemployed people into those jobs and that we have fewer people coming from overseas and getting them.

Nick de Bois: May I press the Minister on the answer he gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess)? Notwithstanding the difficulties of those facing youth
	unemployment, can he confirm that the youth unemployment figure today is lower than it was under the last Government?

Chris Grayling: When we take into account all the policy changes, I can indeed confirm that. The Opposition keep saying that long-term youth unemployment has gone up under this Government, but the previous Government hid the true picture of youth unemployment by moving people onto a training allowance. They did not then show up in the figures and that masked the true picture. We are being open and honest and telling the truth about the challenges that we face.

Huw Irranca-Davies: As Member of Parliament for Ogmore, I have a direct and democratic interest in knowing how many of my constituents who are ex-incapacity benefit and are now on jobseeker’s allowance have been referred to the Work programme. Has the Minister now lifted the ban on disclosure of that information, as he promised in January, and if not, why not?

Chris Grayling: We have already published the referral numbers to the Work programme and we continue to publish estimates of the number of referrals to the Work programme. Every single person on employment and support allowance has access to the Work programme today, and every single person who moves from employment and support allowance to jobseeker’s allowance has access to the Work programme within three months.

David Ward: While we must all welcome the public acclaim given to the Olympians taking part in the Paralympics, does the Minister agree that those with learning difficulties who have their own special Olympics are seldom given the same level of acknowledgement for their skills and abilities?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. However, the Paralympics will give this country a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for us to showcase the talents of disabled people. I recently had the privilege of speaking to Channel 4 about how it will be covering this event and to meet some of the six disabled people who are now trained commentators who will be showcasing this amazing event.

Tom Greatrex: Perhaps my earlier question was not clear, because I did not get a clear answer from the Minister, so I wonder if he could answer my question this time. With the number of people who go through a process of work capability assessment, followed by appeal, followed by assessment again, will he undertake to ensure that the information on which tribunals decide that people are not fit for work is made available to those making the decisions for the following work capability assessment, so that people do not get caught in that cycle?

Chris Grayling: Yes, I get what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. We are currently working with the tribunals service to get written decisions passed back to Jobcentre Plus for decision makers. That will be introduced within the next month.

Steve Brine: Having had a very useful meeting with Winchester Mencap on Friday, may I tell the Minister that it is particularly concerned that some of the flexibility of incapacity benefit should be build into employment and support allowance, as in the experience of many people with a learning disability, any paid work offered often peters out after only a few months?

Chris Grayling: These are issues that we are very sensitive to. We do everything we can to ensure that the support we provide to people with different forms of challenge and disabilities, through the Work programme and work choice, delivers the best possible and most tailored support. We will always engage with the charities involved and discuss how we can enhance the support we provide.

Alison Seabeck: The food bank in Plymouth has seen the number of people using it increase by 700 since April. It has clear evidence that the reason for this is the problem in the transition from contribution-based to income-based benefits, which in some cases lasts between four and eight weeks. Families are being left without money and are having to resort to the food bank, or in some cases, the skips behind supermarkets. What is the Secretary of State doing in his Department to ensure that that gap is reduced significantly?

Iain Duncan Smith: I accept the hon. Lady’s point and will look at the situation carefully to ensure that that does not happen. I will say that when we came into office food banks were not allowed to put their literature in jobcentres; the previous Government did not allow that and did not want them anywhere near jobcentres. We have since allowed them to put their literature in jobcentres. Jobcentre advisers are also telling people about that, so some of that expansion is due to the fact that people did not even know about this before we told them about it, which I think is fairly reasonable.

David Mowat: Given the increasing evidence of market failure in the private pensions system and the Financial Services Authority’s recent estimate that between 30 % and 50% of private pension pots now go on charges, will the Government consider putting a cap on charges before auto-enrolment comes in?

Steve Webb: I am pleased to say that the early evidence from auto-enrolment—firms are already choosing schemes —is that average charge levels are coming down very dramatically, compared with the stakeholder charge caps that used to be in force, for example, with a norm of around 0.5% for last firms, which is radically below the levels we have seen in the market in the past. However, we need to keep this under review and have reserve powers to cap charges if we think they are becoming a problem as auto-enrolment is rolled out.

Jenny Chapman: In their efforts to get people back into work, will Ministers please make more of an effort to work with colleagues in the Treasury on tax credits? Constituents of mine are taking three-month contracts, ringing up to get the forms, which then take six or seven weeks to arrive, and
	when they are returned they are being refused the tax credit because there is only four weeks of the employment left. This is putting people off taking temporary work and really is—I use the word again—a shambles.

Iain Duncan Smith: The hon. Lady knows that we are not yet responsible for tax credits, although under universal credit they will eventually come in. I will certainly relay her comments to the Treasury and ensure that that does not happen. I agree with her that everything we do to promote work, even part-time work, is very important.

Harriett Baldwin: Can the Minister confirm that over 800,000 new jobs have been created in the private sector since the election and that one of the fastest growing sectors in the sector is cyber-security, as it is in my constituency, where there is an insatiable desire to hire young people who have skills, particularly in ethical hacking?

Iain Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The point she should make, quite rightly, is that these are new and growing industries where there are real threats to computers and people using them, and that is why the industry is growing. More than that, in the past three months we have seen a fall in unemployment and a rise in private sector employment, even though we have been moving more people from incapacity benefit, ESA and lone parent benefits to jobseeker’s allowance, so it has been a success in difficult times and we should applaud that.

John Cryer: Of the 54 existing Remploy factories, how many does the Minister expect still to be running at the end of this Parliament, whether they are called Remploy or go under another name?

Maria Miller: The hon. Gentleman will know that we are in the middle of a commercial process, and therefore I do not know the answer to his question. However, I
	hope that as a result of the work being done we can, as Liz Sayce’s recommendations suggest, set those factories free from Government control. I remind him of the comments made by the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) back in November 2007:
	“The reality is that without modernisation Remploy deficits would obliterate our other programmes to help disabled people into mainstream work.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2007; Vol. 468, c. 448.]
	We agree with that statement.

George Freeman: The Labour party has been critical of the proposed regionalisation of benefits. Will the Secretary of State remind the House which senior politician first recommended the idea?

Iain Duncan Smith: I understand that it was the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), who actually called for a debate, but as soon as we got a debate he told us that we were debating the wrong thing, which is rather strange.

Emma Reynolds: Many of my constituents have raised concerns with me about the forthcoming bedroom tax, especially given the lack of affordable alternative housing in Wolverhampton. Specifically, can the Secretary of State reassure me that individuals or families with disabilities who are in adapted housing, and who have waited some time to secure it, will not be subject to reductions in their housing benefit as of April next year?

Chris Grayling: We have ensured that local authorities have a substantial amount of money in discretionary funds to take into account the kind of situation that the hon. Lady describes, but the reality is that in the social rented sector we have about 1 million spare rooms, and at a time when people are queuing up on waiting lists throughout the country, it makes no sense for the taxpayer to pay for that.

Flooding

Mary Creagh: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will update the House on flooding.

Caroline Spelman: Over recent weeks we have seen extraordinary amounts of rainfall, culminating in the flooding earlier this month when parts of Sussex experienced almost two months’ rainfall in just 36 hours, and most recently over the past weekend.
	Some areas in Cumbria, Lancashire and west Yorkshire saw a month’s worth of rain in 24 hours, but Cumbria had the highest rainfall, at 210 mm, with 200 mm in Honister, compared with between 80 mm and 100 mm elsewhere in the region. That extreme rainfall caused rivers to rise to unprecedented levels in some cases, and to flooding being experienced on Friday and overnight into Saturday.
	I do understand the devastation that is caused to people whose homes and businesses are flooded; it has happened to me. We expect the number of properties affected to be at least 1,200 as final numbers are collated throughout the impacted areas. My thoughts go out to all those who have suffered flooding, especially those in the worst affected areas, including Crawshawbooth, Todmorden, Hebden Bridge and Mytholmroyd. I know that local communities rallied round as the recovery operation began in earnest, and I hope that all will be able to return to their homes as soon as possible.
	I should also like to take this opportunity to praise the excellent response from our front-line emergency services. I am delighted to report that, thanks in no small part to their efforts, there was no loss of life and few serious injuries. I am also very grateful for the diligent work of the Met Office and the Environment Agency staff in the Flood Forecasting Centre. Their forecasts, from the middle of last week, foresaw the event unfolding and meant that much work was possible in advance to lessen its impact.
	Teams of Environment Agency and local authority staff were out before the flood waters arrived, clearing drains, testing defences and preparing flood basins. Flood warnings were issued to more than 7,000 properties, and flood warning sirens sounded in Todmorden and Hebden Bridge.
	Protecting our communities against flooding is a vital area of the work of government, and I am pleased to say that the Environment Agency estimates that 11,000 properties were protected in the areas affected through a combination of flood defences, maintenance work, storage basins and temporary measures. For every property flooded, another 10 or so were not.
	In Carlisle, the defences built following the 2005 floods have now prevented a repeat of that devastating event twice: in 2009 and this weekend. On Saturday, river levels in Carlisle were actually higher than they were in 2005.
	In our changing climate, we will never be able to prevent flooding completely, as we have seen over this past weekend and earlier in June. Through the excellent
	preparations and work of front-line responders, including the police, the fire service, the Environment Agency and local authorities, and through the more than £2 billion of investment being made by the Government, however, we are better prepared for flooding than ever before.

Mary Creagh: I thank the Secretary of State for updating the House on the flooding in the north of England over the weekend, and I echo her tributes to the emergency services and voluntary sector, who worked to evacuate homes and keep people safe. I also thank the Environment Agency and local authority staff, who worked throughout Friday night to ensure that flood defences were activated in places such as my constituency of Wakefield, which was flooded in 2007, and the Lower Aire valley in Leeds.
	Will the right hon. Lady join me in paying tribute to businesses that have offered help to businesses affected? Hon. Members on both sides will be relieved that no lives were lost, but the severity of the floods has meant that the communities affected face months of disruption and upheaval. What contact did the right hon. Lady have with the Cabinet Office civil contingency secretariat? What detailed information does she have on the number of homes and businesses affected in the areas of Hebden Bridge, Mytholmroyd and Todmorden?
	What will happen to those who have been made homeless by the floods, and what housing arrangements are in place—particularly for the frail elderly and the disabled? What contact has the right hon. Lady had with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government about the recovery effort? I see that the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), is here. Which Government Minister will lead on the flood recovery and on providing support for the affected communities?
	Following the floods of 2007 and 2009, the Government set up a flood recovery grant as a one-off payment to councils to help households seriously affected by the floods. Do the Government intend to help councils and communities in that way this time? If so, when can communities expect that help?
	When Wakefield suffered from floods in 2007, the loan sharks were out on the streets there the very next day. What contact has the right hon. Lady had with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that crisis loans are available to families left destitute by the floods, to ensure that families do not fall prey to loan sharks?
	What estimate has the Department for Communities and Local Government made on the cost of flood recovery to local authorities? Is the Bellwin scheme likely to be activated by the floods? In 2007 and 2009, central Government covered 100% of local authority costs under the Bellwin scheme. Is the right hon. Lady planning to do the same again? What contact has she had with the Department for Education to ensure that children whose schools have been flooded continue to receive their education? Will she review the flood warnings given by the Environment Agency and local authorities, as issues have been raised about the timeliness of the warnings?
	When I spoke to representatives of the Association of British Insurers this morning, they said that the initial estimate was that about 500 properties had been flooded
	and that the likely cost to insurers was in the low tens of millions of pounds. Can the Secretary of State give an estimate of the value of uninsured losses? What support will the Government give to the under-insured or uninsured? Will she encourage the loss adjusters to get into the affected areas as quickly as possible to provide help to people?
	Every £1 invested in flood defences saves £8 in costs further down the line. This weekend, we had a reminder once again that floods are the greatest threat that climate change poses to our country. The right hon. Lady mentioned how much the Government are investing in flood defences, but that is a 30% cut from the 2010 baseline. In the light of what has happened, will she undertake to review the figure? Will she reassure the House that she will resist any pressure from the Treasury to cut flood defence spending in next year’s comprehensive spending review? Communities that have been devastated by flooding should not have to go through that terrible experience again.

Caroline Spelman: I certainly join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to the businesses that have helped with the situation on the ground—as they always do, in my experience. Every time I have visited a flood situation I have found that the whole community has rallied round, and I applaud that.
	The Department has a procedure for dealing with flooding at three levels of risk: low, medium and high. Civil contingencies arrangements are not triggered at the medium risk of flooding, which is what we faced this weekend. We have arrangements in hand that cover all flooding eventualities. They were activated the week before last in Sussex and over the weekend in the north-west and west Yorkshire. The current state of play is that 1,200 homes have been registered as flooded, but the number could still rise as it becomes more accurate over time. I have a breakdown by community, if the hon. Lady is particularly interested, but without a doubt the most affected communities are Todmorden, Walsden and Callis Bridge, with 540 properties flooded, followed by Hebden Bridge, with 245 properties flooded, and Mytholmroyd and Sowerby Bridge, with 145 properties flooded. The numbers then reduce, but the flooding extends across a very wide area.
	Homelessness is principally a responsibility of the local authority. The local authority in each of these areas takes a lead role in the provision of homes for those affected. I have been in contact with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to make sure that our actions are joined up across Whitehall.
	Under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, we make specific grants available to assist local authorities, with £21 million-worth of grants provided this year and a higher figure to be provided in subsequent years of this Parliament.
	On crisis loans, in the first instance the flood-affected can turn to a local authority for help through social funds. As I am sure the hon. Lady is aware, the trigger for the Bellwin formula is 15% of a local authority’s income, and current estimates from the Department for Communities and Local Government, through the Secretary of State, suggest that it is unlikely to be triggered in this case. The scheme is there to deal with a catastrophic situation facing a local authority, and any final decision on this will not be made until we know the full extent of the damage.
	The local authority has primary responsibility for ensuring that schools are safe to return to and, in turn, informing parents.
	We now have available a sophisticated system of flood warnings. Perhaps it is helpful for me to make all Members of the House aware of the new facility whereby anyone in a flood-affected area can register to receive a text message flood warning. There has been a very substantial uptake of this service. However, it often increases after an event has occurred, so the Environment Agency plans to proceed with text message flood warnings on an opt-out basis in future. Where households do not have a mobile phone to receive a text, it can be received in digital form on a landline, so no one should be unaware of a flood warning. In addition, I commend to the House the use of flood wardens who can knock on people’s doors to forewarn them, especially in the case of the vulnerable and the elderly. Communities that have been flooded often subsequently seek volunteers in this role.
	On flood insurance, we are at an advanced stage in intensive and constructive negotiations with the insurance industry on alternative arrangements for when the statement of principles expires this time next year. As the hon. Lady will be aware, in 2008 the insurance industry notified her party, when in government, that the statement of principles would come to an end. Her party in government did not find a successor to the principles but, as she will have heard me say, we are well on our way to doing so. The average insurance premium is roughly £300 a year, while the average estimated claim in this regard is so far estimated to be £15,000. That shows the benefit of households being insured.
	On flood defences, I do not accept the hon. Lady’s figure of a 30% cut. She is not comparing like with like. If we compare how the previous Government funded flood defences in their last four years in office with our commitment to fund flood defences for the four years that succeeded their loss of power, we see that the reduction is just 6%. When she considers the mess her party left the Government in, she will recognise that that was no mean achievement. In addition, a new method of partnership funding whereby third parties come in to help to get some of these new flood defences built has brought an extra £72 million into such works in its first year of operation.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. There is a statement by the Prime Minister to follow. I do not expect exchanges on this urgent question to continue beyond 4 o’clock, so if the level of interest is to be accommodated, there is a premium on brevity from Back Benchers and Front Benchers alike.

Craig Whittaker: The Environment Agency has invested millions of pounds in Calder Valley’s flood defences over recent years, but nothing could have stopped what happened with the onslaught of water on Friday night. My wife and I saw first hand, from the valley bottom to up to 1,000 feet above these communities, a month’s rainwater coming down the country lanes in waterfalls and torrents. Will my right hon. Friend join me in saying to the communities of Todmorden, Hebden Bridge and Mytholmroyd that our thoughts
	are with them, and will she explain what extra help may be available to them to make sure that they quickly get back on their feet?

Caroline Spelman: Through my hon. Friend, I extend my heartfelt sympathy to those communities. I know how they feel, having had to evacuate my home for 10 months after flooding. It takes a long time and a great toll on people’s mental health to get things back to the state that they were in before the flood occurred. There are two practical things to say. First, the completion of the third phase of the flood defences in Todmorden will help to protect more properties. Secondly, the community in Hebden Bridge might like to consider the partnership funding model, which might bring useful assistance. My hon. Friend is right that when a month’s rain falls in 24 hours, virtually no infrastructure can prevent flooding completely.

Ian Lavery: Is the Secretary of State confident that post-2013 flood risk insurance will be available and affordable to those who are most affected by the floods?

Caroline Spelman: Yes, I am confident of that because we have reached an advanced stage of negotiation with the insurance industry to secure universal and affordable flood insurance. It is often misunderstood, but the statement of principles was no guarantee of the affordability of insurance. We understand how important that is, and will make a statement shortly.

Andrew George: It seems that the heavens are opening with distressingly increased regularity and intensity. Given that the science of forecasting is improving and the growing responsibility of the Environment Agency, what more can be done to ensure that that science is harnessed and that mobile defences are put in place to respond to it?

Caroline Spelman: My hon. Friend is right that the capacity to forecast has improved. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs gives the Flood Forecasting Centre £2.9 million per annum, which continues the funding position from before we came into government. The accuracy of the forecasting means that we can give communities vital hours in which to give advice to home owners on how to protect themselves and their possessions. I suggest that communities that face flooding regularly, which substantial parts of Cornwall do, consider technical provisions, such as text messaging, backed up by flood wardens who knock on doors personally. I saw people in Sussex resist moving even when all the advice had been given to them. There is no substitute for the human touch.

Yvonne Fovargue: Many of my constituents have benefited from the flood defences put in place by the last Government. However, they are now looking to renew their insurance premiums for a further year. I am pleased to hear that the negotiations are at an advanced stage. However, given that people have to take out insurance now for 2013, when will the matter be decided?

Caroline Spelman: As I have indicated, good progress has been made. I spoke to the annual general meeting of the Association of British Insurers last month to indicate to the insurers that we were close to reaching agreement on a basis that will guarantee the universality and affordability of insurance.

Bob Stewart: I was in Rossendale last Friday night and I have never seen rain like that before in the United Kingdom. It was shocking. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that when there is warning that flooding is likely, one person in the north-west, or in any other region where flooding might occur, is responsible for rapidly co-ordinating the emergency resources?

Caroline Spelman: I can give that assurance to my hon. Friend, who, with his military background, will know the importance of a command and control structure. The response is linked to the severity of the risk. There is a very clear structure involving silver and gold commands, led respectively by the police and the local authority, which ensures that wherever such an event takes place—he is right that we are seeing extreme weather events with increasing frequency—a tried and tested procedure clicks into place. We practised that structure last year in Exercise Watermark.

John Healey: Which of the flood-hit areas has the Secretary of State visited? There was nothing in her statement about the actions she will take, and little that showed that the Government understand that, when the waters recede, so does public and media interest, but the problems that families and firms face simply do not. It can take months to get those problems, including insurance claims, sorted out, so will she call in the insurance companies and ensure that claims are speeded up, as the Labour Government did after the 2007 floods?

Caroline Spelman: The right hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said. I know from personal experience exactly what flooding feels like, having been flooded out of my home for 10 months. I visited the flooding in Sussex the week before last, but there is a clear procedure for Ministers, which I imagine he knows. Ministers are not welcome in the immediate emergency because we might get in the way of the emergency services doing their job. We wait to be advised by them on the right time to visit. Had the urgent question not been asked today, I could have been on site. The Under-Secretary has kindly agreed to go to the north-west and west Yorkshire, because there is no substitute for hearing from the ground in the aftermath, as the clear-up operation takes place, what, if anything, we could learn to do better.

Simon Hart: Has the Secretary of State been able to measure the impact of the habitats directive on the Environment Agency’s ability to maintain main rivers and prevent flooding?

Caroline Spelman: The Environment Agency has drawn praise not just from the local communities that were flooded this weekend, but from those that were flooded the week before last in Sussex. In my experience, including of the severe flooding event in Cornwall in 2010, the
	agency constantly strikes a balance to ensure that the forces of nature, which we admire on a fine day when the rivers are not bursting their banks, can be contained, and as far as possible directed not to do damage, to the built community in the event of such adverse weather conditions, which we see more frequently.

Barry Gardiner: Does the Secretary of State agree with the Environment Agency’s assessment that it should spend an additional £20 million on flood defences each year? Instead of disputing whether there is a 6% or 27% cut, does she not realise that the failure to invest that money costs Great Britain plc far more in the costs of clearing up after floods?

Caroline Spelman: We would all like to spend more money on flood defences—there is a very good return on investment: for every £1 of taxpayers’ money spent, there is an £8 return—but the reality of the situation is that the Labour party left the nation’s finances in a very bad state. When in government, the hon. Gentleman’s party indicated that it would cut capital by 50%. In the circumstances, therefore, he should see a 6% reduction as a significant improvement on what his party pledged.
	In addition, I could not underline more the importance of the new approach to funding flood defences, which is to encourage partnership funding to bring in extra resources, so that more homes can be protected. In its first year, partnership funding has brought in an extra £72 million—much of that from local government. That means we will exceed our aim to protect better at least 145,000 more homes in the lifetime of this Parliament.

Neil Parish: I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement on using partnership funds to create better flood defences. May I echo the words of my colleague who said that the dredging of rivers and tributaries by the Environment Agency can help a great deal in the long run with flooding?

Caroline Spelman: There is no doubt that the judicious management of our watercourses can help substantially in times of very heavy rainfall. Given the steepness of
	the valleys in places such as Cornwall and Cumbria, such action poses a significant challenge. The community of Hebden Bridge had not qualified under the old approach of 100% of state-funded flood defences, but it has the opportunity under partnership funding to get the flood defences that are much needed.

Diana Johnson: I am sure the Secretary of State knows that today is the fifth anniversary of the dreadful flooding in Hull. In the light of that and Hull residents’ experience of getting insurance at a reasonable cost, without excessive premiums or excesses, can the Secretary of State assure me that the new agreement will open up the insurance market in areas such as Hull?

Caroline Spelman: Yes, I can give the hon. Lady that assurance; details will follow shortly. As I said, however, having inherited a situation in which the previous Government failed to come up with a successor to the statement of principles, I am proud that we have found a way forward with the insurance industry that, above all, guarantees that universal and affordable insurance remains available to all, including her constituents.

Henry Smith: The flooding in west Sussex has been of great concern, but will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the Government’s significant investment in the upper river Mole flood alleviation scheme, which is now starting to protect homes and businesses in Crawley constituency?

Caroline Spelman: Yes, I welcome it, and, through my hon. Friend, I would like to pay tribute to the emergency services, volunteers and communities following that severe flooding incident in Sussex. Almost two months’ rain fell in 36 hours. It was encouraging that the equipment we provided, within the county and across county boundaries, was brought into play in that time of need, as the procedures required.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the Secretary of State and colleagues.

G20 Summit

David Cameron: The G20 needed to address the five big threats to the global economy: first, the problems in the eurozone; secondly, the mountain of debt and persistence of imbalances in the world economy; thirdly, the lack of growth; fourthly, the rise of protectionism; and fifthly the failure to regulate our banks properly. I shall take each briefly in turn.
	First, I turn to the eurozone. Britain is not in the eurozone, and we are not going to join it, but, given that 40% of our trade is with the eurozone, its future affects our future. It is in our national interest for it to resolve its difficulties. As a full member of the EU and a significant net contributor to its budget, it is not only vital but right that we speak plainly about what needs to happen.
	In the short term, we need rapid action by the core of the eurozone, including the European Central Bank, to restore financial stability and confidence to the countries on the periphery of the eurozone as they undergo their vital structural reforms. That needs to be reinforced in the medium term by improvements to the governance of the eurozone that recognise the remorseless logic of being in a currency union.
	This clearly was a G20 summit, not a eurozone summit, but none the less the eurozone countries made some steps towards both those goals. First, they agreed to take all necessary policy measures to safeguard the integrity and stability of the eurozone, including breaking the link between sovereign debt problems and bank instability, and secondly they committed to taking further steps towards fiscal and economic integration, including through a banking union.
	Britain does not want to stand in the way of these measures towards closer integration of the eurozone, but we will not be part of them. We did not join the eurozone precisely because we did not want to give up the kind of sovereignty over our national economy that is essential to making a currency union work. And we have been clear that whatever long term decisions are made about the governance of the eurozone, the rules that govern the single market must always protect the interests of all its 27 members. This is a red line for Britain and is vital to our national interests. The eurozone now needs to get on with implementing the agreements reached at the G20, and I will work at the European Council this week to ensure that the eurozone takes these steps in a way that protects the UK’s interests.
	To deal with the wider risks of contagion to the global economy, the G20 also welcomed the commitments to increase the resources available to the IMF by more than $450 billion. It is a basic principle of the IMF that the help it offers is for countries not for currencies. Indeed, almost all the IMF’s 50 programmes are for countries outside the eurozone. No country has ever lost money lending to the IMF, and Britain’s contribution is a loan on which interest is payable, and will be used only if troubled economies meet strict conditions to get their economies back on track.
	Secondly, I turn to debt and imbalances. As at the G8, there was absolute agreement that deficit reduction and growth were not alternatives—you need the first to
	secure the second. The G20 also reaffirmed its commitment to reduce global imbalances, with deficit countries strengthening their public finances and surplus countries taking further actions to increase demand and move towards greater exchange rate flexibility. In particular, we welcomed China’s commitment to allow market forces to play a larger role in determining movements in its exchange rate, and to continue reform and increase transparency in its exchange rate policy. This is an important advance for the G20 in dealing with global imbalances, which was of course one of the underlying causes of the crisis in 2008.
	In a debt-driven crisis where many countries lack the fiscal space to stimulate their economies, the most powerful tools for growth that we have are monetary activism and structural reform. The G20 agreed that monetary policy should continue to support the economic recovery, and every G20 country has put on the table specific structural reform commitments to strengthen global demand, foster job creation and increase growth potential. The Los Cabos growth and jobs action plan includes mechanisms to hold G20 members accountable for delivering on the reform commitments made. Vitally for us, this includes completing the European single market.
	The G20 did not just focus on growth in the largest economies, as it also reaffirmed its vital commitment to supporting private sector-led growth in the poorest countries as the best way of helping people to lift themselves out of poverty. Britain led a significant breakthrough on two of the biggest barriers to successful private sector development in developing countries. First, we drove forward the G20’s anti-corruption plan, including securing agreement on important new principles that will deny to all G20 countries entry by corrupt officials or those who corrupt them. Secondly, on the inability of farmers to access the technology that makes their farming viable, Britain made a substantial contribution to the AgResults initiative, which will harness the creativity of the private sector to help put new technology in the hands of the world’s poorest farmers. We will be building on this further at our special event on hunger, which will be held at the Olympics in London this August.
	Fourthly, on trade, we expressed our deep concern about rising instances of protectionism around the world. The President of Argentina had a number of arguments during this summit—not just with me—and it was made very clear to her that recent behaviour by Argentina on both investment and trade protectionism was not acceptable. At this G20, free trade again won the day. We extended our commitment to avoid any new protectionist measures until the end of 2014, and agreed to roll back new protectionist measures that have arisen, including new export restrictions.
	Most significant of all, the US and the EU reached a groundbreaking political agreement to move forward with a deep but credible trade agreement with a clear and agreed timetable. The EU-US high-level working group will now produce recommendations for taking this forward by the end of the year. The EU and US make up half of the world’s gross domestic produce, so completing a deal here could provide an enormous boost to growth across the world. That means, of course, jobs and growth in Britain.
	Fifthly, on financial regulation, this G20 maintained the political impetus behind the reform of regulation across the global economy. We endorsed the strengthening
	of the Financial Stability Board in holding all G20 countries to account for delivering on their commitments, which was specifically recommended by the UK report on global governance at the Cannes summit last year. We also agreed to push forward with completing the implementation of Basel III.
	In the margins of this summit, I had useful discussions on some of our key foreign policy priorities. On Syria, where the regime continues to pound civilian areas with mortars, attack helicopters and snipers, the EU is today, as a result of UK efforts, extending sanctions to ban any EU companies from insuring ships taking arms to Syria. We will continue work with our international partners, including through the UN to stop the appalling slaughter and help forge a political transition to a democratic future that protects the rights of all its communities.
	Finally, on the Falkland Islands, I took the opportunity to emphasise the importance of the planned referendum to President Kirchner. The islanders have had to put up with endless attempts at endless summits to put a question mark over their future. They want to determine that future themselves. No one should be in any doubt that, as far as the British Government are concerned, it is the Falkland islanders who will determine the sovereignty of the islands. I believe that their view will be respected by this House, this country and, indeed, by the world. I commend the statement to the House.

Edward Miliband: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Let me start with the foreign policy issues that he raised. On the Falklands, there is support on the Opposition Benches for the absolute need to protect the principle of self-determination for the islanders, and we should always stand up for that.
	On the issue of Syria, there is deep concern on all sides about the continued failure of the Annan plan to deliver a cessation of violence. Given the urgency of having an immediate end to the escalating hostilities, does the Prime Minister agree that it is now vital for the international community to unite around the need for the toughest sanctions against Syria? In his press conference after the summit, the Prime Minister said that President Putin has been explicit that he is not locked in to Assad remaining in charge in Syria, but Russia’s Foreign Minister Lavrov said that was not his Government’s position. Does the Prime Minister still believe this to be the case, and does he believe that there is a case for persuading Russia to take a tougher stance?
	I shall now turn to the main business of the summit, the economy. The G20 last met in Cannes in November. Since then our country has gone into a double-dip recession, world growth has slowed, and the eurozone crisis has deepened. If ever there was a time for the international community to come together and act, this was it, but frankly—I think that the Prime Minister may himself really recognise this—all that we got from the summit was more of the same: drift and inaction in the face of a global crisis.
	The Prime Minister claimed at his press conference afterwards that the summit had
	“made important progress on the Eurozone, on the lack of global growth and on the rise of protectionism.”
	That sounded familiar to me—and then I realised why. The Prime Minister had said exactly the same after the last failed summit, in Cannes in November. On global growth, the Cannes summit communiqué said
	“should global economic conditions materially worsen”,
	countries
	“agree to take discretionary measures to support domestic demand”.
	The list of the countries concerned included Germany.
	Well, global conditions have worsened, most evidently in Britain, which is only one of two countries in the G20 to have gone into a double-dip recession. If that communiqué meant anything, it meant that this G20 summit should have been a coming together of the world leaders with a real plan to boost global demand, but what did we get? The Mexico communiqué is a cut-and-paste job which effectively repeats the same words that we heard at Cannes, almost word for word. Perhaps the Prime Minister will be able to tell me whether the words or the commitments of the international community have changed. As far as I can see, it is more words and no action. People will be asking—and rightly so—how much worse the economy has to get.
	The tragedy, of course, is that the international community are divided, between those who want a decisive move towards growth and jobs, like President Obama and President Hollande, and those whose answer to the failure of the last two years is simply more of the same—the same austerity that is not working—like the German Chancellor and our Prime Minister. Maybe the Prime Minister will be able to tell us whether, with Britain now in a double-dip recession, he was arguing at this summit for anything different from what he argued for last November. From his statement, it certainly does not sound that way.
	On the eurozone, the Prime Minister said:
	“These are significant agreements; now the Eurozone countries need to get on and implement them.”
	But is not the reality that there is no agreement on the main issues of substance—how to recapitalise European banks, how the European Central Bank can stand behind member countries, and how to prevent the escalation of problems in the bond markets? It is more of the same—more kicking the can down the road—and there is no plan for growth in Europe either.
	Of course the Prime Minister cannot be part of the solution, but he is part of the problem. No wonder he was looking for something else to talk about during the summit, and of course he found it, although, strangely, it was omitted from his statement—the tax affairs of Jimmy Carr. On Wednesday he could not have been clearer: Jimmy Carr was “morally wrong”. On what he called the “Gary Barlow situation”, he said—I am not making this up, I promise, Mr Speaker—
	“As soon as I get in front of a computer I will have a look at it.”
	On Thursday, the now-familiar sound of screeching tyres could be heard. The U-turn was well and truly under way. The Prime Minister said:
	“I am not going to give a running commentary on different people’s tax affairs. I don’t think that would be right.”
	[Interruption.] Members ask about the G20. Tax avoidance is certainly an issue at the G20 summit.
	Later, when the Prime Minister’s spokeswoman was asked whether he had had a chance to catch up with the “Gary Barlow situation”, she said:
	“He has been very busy.”
	By Sunday, even the Prime Minister was saying “I think I’ve said enough.” That is certainly true.
	There is one important lesson to be learnt from the last week. In the midst of an economic hurricane, this global summit should have produced action, not words. The reality is that this is a Prime Minister who has come back from the summit with nothing for Britain: nothing to turn around a double-dip recession, nothing to help Britain’s families, nothing to ensure growth in the world economy. No wonder he wanted to spend the summit talking about Jimmy Carr.

David Cameron: Oh dearie me.
	First, let me thank the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) for his support over Afghanistan. I welcome that. On Syria, I agree that we should continue to back tough sanctions. On Russia, I had useful conversations with President Putin. Clearly the stance that the Russians take is a matter for them, but we believe that there is a real case for getting together and working to implement, in particular, the parts of the Annan plan that are about political transition, and we will continue to make those arguments.
	On the economy, I do not over-claim—

Edward Balls: Tell us about Gary Barlow.

David Cameron: I will tell you about that in a minute. I am trying to remember the words that you are and are not allowed to use in the House, Mr Speaker.
	I would not over-claim for this summit—clearly, it was a G20, not a eurozone, summit—but I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that there are some battles that we have to fight every year, and the battle to prevent the rise of protectionism is just such a battle. This year, we have moved forward the date before which no one can put in place protectionist measures by another year, to 2014. Frankly, I wish that had gone further, but the idea that we fight this battle once and the fight is over is quite wrong.
	The right hon. Gentleman’s problem with the communiqué —of course, he did not say whether or not he would have signed it—is that what he wants is more spending, more borrowing and more debt. The fact is that, while there might be some countries that could afford to spend more, because of the mess he left, Britain is not one of them. I have to remind him that he left us with a deficit that was bigger than those of Greece, Portugal and Spain. He quoted President Hollande, but he might remember President Hollande’s statement in which he said that the national debt is the “enemy” of the left. What a pity it is not an enemy of the left politicians sitting across from us. The right hon. Gentleman says we are part of the problem: frankly, he created the problem.
	As for the issue of Jimmy Carr and all the rest of it, we learned from what happened in respect of Ken Livingstone that it is Labour politicians who are involved in tax avoidance, and now we know a new rule: they will stand up for tax avoiders wherever they are.

Peter Tapsell: On Syria: last week, in answer to a parliamentary question, the Foreign Secretary agreed that there was some
	resemblance between Syria and Bosnia. If that is so, will the Prime Minister do his utmost to make sure that the Damascus of 2012 does not become the Sarajevo of 1914?

David Cameron: As ever, the Father of the House makes a very important point. One of the crucial things we want to see for the future of Syria, whatever the outcome, is that there is proper protection of minorities, including Christian minorities, in that country. We do not want to see sectarian conflict. It has become increasingly clear that there will not be a prosperous and safe future for Syria with Assad still in charge. That is why the political transition that Annan’s plan involves is so important and why we should keep pushing it.

Peter Hain: Can the Prime Minister explain how Britain will retain its influence in the G20 given that his Government are isolating themselves from the main power brokers in the European Union? As Russia and China follow America in becoming superpowers, and as Russia flexes its muscles and India rises too, surely we should be right at the centre of the EU so that we are listened to more, instead of being followers on the margins of the EU?

David Cameron: If by that the right hon. Gentleman means, “Should we join the euro and just go along with everything that is suggested?”— [Interruption.] Well, that is what would follow, and I do not accept that for a moment. Britain can play a strong role in the EU, but where there are things we do not want to join, such as the Schengen no-borders agreement and the single currency, Britain should stay outside them.
	In terms of our relations with the rest of the world, the Government have done a huge amount to increase our relations with China and India, as trade flows in the last few years show: in the last two years, exports to China up 72%, exports to India up 93% and exports to Russia up 109%. We are making a difference where it counts.

Malcolm Rifkind: The Prime Minister referred to the part of the G20 declaration headed
	“Intensifying the fight against corruption”,
	which endorsed the
	“denial of entry to our countries of corrupt officials, and those who corrupt them”.
	As these measures were inspired by the tragic case of Sergei Magnitsky, who died in a Russian prison having exposed massive corruption by Russian state officials, is it not ironic that the next chair of the G20 will be Russia, and that President Putin will be chairing the next conference, in St Petersburg? Will my right hon. Friend encourage President Putin, who presumably endorsed this declaration, to ensure that those responsible for the death of Magnitsky and this massive corruption are brought to justice before President Putin chairs that conference a year from now?

David Cameron: My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point. The section of the communiqué about corruption is indeed important, and all the countries that have signed up to it should make sure that they put it in place. One of the strengths of the G20 is that,
	because it is not bringing together countries that necessarily share all the same democratic or human rights values, it is an opportunity to try to push some of those agendas with colleagues sitting round the table.

Chris Bryant: The Prime Minister jests about what words are allowed and not allowed in this Chamber; on the Opposition Benches, we would quite like to hear one word more often from his lips: “growth”.
	Further to the question from the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), the problem of corruption in Russia is manifest. On 7 March, this House unanimously agreed a resolution, supported by the Government, calling on them to introduce legislative proposals to make sure that those involved in the murder of Sergei Magnitsky and the corruption that he unveiled were banned from this country. When will those legislative proposals be introduced?

David Cameron: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that the word I am waiting for from him, because he introduced a point of order claiming that I had misled the House, is “sorry”. To be fair to him, he has said sorry to everybody else—you, Mr Speaker, I think, and to the House in general—but the person he accused of doing something wrong he has yet to say “sorry” to. So, until I get that apology, I think I will leave off the answers.

Simon Hughes: The communiqué was clear that, as a way of agreeing further growth, there should be investment in infrastructure, particularly in housing, which would bring both jobs in general and deal with youth unemployment in particular. Can the Prime Minister say anything about the priority our Government will give to those matters in this country, in order to get youngsters off the dole and houses built for them to live in?

David Cameron: My right hon. Friend raises an important point. Because we have credibility in financial markets and our interest rates are less than 2%, we are able to use the strength of our balance sheet to help make sure that houses get built, that infrastructure goes ahead and that we help our economy in that way. We are looking at the best way to make this happen.

Caroline Lucas: Given the lack of any discernible progress on ending harmful fossil fuel subsidies since the first G20 pledge on that three years ago, and given the silence about it again today, what would the Prime Minister say to the 1 million people whose petition was handed to him last week asking for an immediate end to those subsidies? Does he really think they are the best use of $100 billion globally every single year?

David Cameron: The hon. Lady makes a very important point, and there is huge pressure on countries that have big fossil fuel subsidies to end them. A number of countries—such as Nigeria and, I believe, Pakistan—have taken some steps to end the subsidies. It is obviously a difficult and painful process for those Governments to go through as they change the structures of their economy, but we should be encouraging them.

Richard Ottaway: May I welcome the Prime Minister’s attack on protectionism and support for free trade, particularly the US-EU trade agreement timetable? Does he agree that these are the two largest trading blocs in the world, and together will create an enormous bloc that will have a profound effect on growth and trade across the world?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is entirely right to raise this issue—it is half the world’s GDP. There are a huge number of difficulties in getting these talks properly under way; there will be concerns about farm subsidies and about hidden protectionism on both sides. But the pressure from European member states on the European Commission—and, indeed, from the Commission itself—and, I believe, from business in the US on the American President, is to get a deal done, because in the end, it would be very good for all of us.

Dennis Skinner: Now that the Prime Minister has had his Jimmy Carr moment, would it not be a good idea to publish a list of all those using tax avoidance schemes, including those closer to home and those who inhabit millionaires’ row?

Mr Speaker: Order. I feel sure that the hon. Gentleman was seeking to relate his question to the European summit.

Dennis Skinner: That is where it all happened.

Mr Speaker: Yes, and I know that that is what the Prime Minister will deal with in his reply.

David Cameron: I was hoping, for once, that the hon. Gentleman would stand up and applaud what I had said about tax avoidance and aggressive tax avoidance. I thought, for once, we might be on the same side.

Mr Speaker: And better still—I beg your pardon to the hon. Gentleman and to the House—to the G20 summit. That would be helpful.

Peter Bone: I am very grateful for the Prime Minister’s statement, particularly after he made such an excellent speech on welfare reform earlier today. Could he confirm that the referendum for the Falkland Islands will be binding and solemn? As referendums are such a good idea for people, why can we not have one in this country about our relationship with the European Union?

David Cameron: That was an excellent link, if I may say so. What is so important about the Falkland Islands referendum, which is very much an initiative that has come from the Falkland islanders themselves, is that it will give the opportunity for the rest of the world to see what the people who live there actually want—lots of countries that are not particularly focused on this issue may, in the past, have gone along with proposals from Argentina without really considering that. When they see it in glorious technicolour, I hope that will make a difference.

Luciana Berger: The Prime Minister will be aware that last week the Rio+20 conference also took place. As the leader of
	what he calls the “greenest Government ever”, can he share with us what representations he made in Mexico about that other crucial conference?

David Cameron: Obviously it is difficult to be in two places at once, so I did the G20 and the Deputy Prime Minister was at the Rio+20 summit. We discussed it a great deal in advance, and I think it did make some useful progress in terms of sustainable goals. I am also going to be working, through this high-level panel to which Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has appointed me, to make sure that we put in place the right replacements for the millennium development goals and that they take into account sustainable concerns as well.

Julian Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that events in the eurozone have predictably proven that the creation of the single European currency was a disastrous mistake?

David Cameron: It would have been a mistake for us to join the single currency, because we did not want to give up the necessary sovereignty to make a single currency work. We have to respect the fact that there are countries in the eurozone that want to make it work, and we have to allow them that opportunity. It would clearly be in our interests if we had a working single currency on our doorstep, rather than a dysfunctional one, which, I am afraid, is slightly what we have at the moment. So we have to make our own choices, and other EU countries must make their own choices, but the key point—this is where I agree with my hon. Friend —is that a single currency will not work unless it has at least the underpinnings that other single currencies, such as our own, have: a central bank right behind it; a means of supporting the weaker parts of the union at various times; and some sort of joint debt issuance. Those are the sort of things that all single currencies, the world over, have. To that extent, I agree with him.

Christopher Leslie: At the G20, how did it feel for the Prime Minister to be one of only two leaders to have their domestic economies in recession?

David Cameron: What it feels like at the G20 is that you are around a table with people from other countries that have large budget deficits but not as large as the ones that we were left. We were left with an 11% budget deficit and with the biggest banking bust that had taken place anywhere. So I would say that there is considerable sympathy for that around the table, and a lot of people around the table talk about the complete mess we were left in.

David Burrowes: The German Foreign Minister recently wrote in The Times:
	“Anyone who wants new flash-in-the-pan stimulus packages financed by yet more borrowing has learnt absolutely nothing from the crisis.”
	Who was he talking about?

David Cameron: I cannot possibly think, but I can think of some people sitting opposite me who do believe that the way to get out of a debt crisis is to borrow more—that is their policy.

William Bain: The OECD has predicted that economic demand in America will rise this year at 2.3%, but in Britain it will rise at only 0.2%. Can the Prime Minister explain why?

David Cameron: There some quite significant differences between the American economy and the British economy. One of the biggest differences is that it is a reserve currency and we are not a reserve currency. Another big difference is that we had an 11% budget deficit, which was bigger than the deficits of Greece, Spain and Portugal. That is the legacy that the hon. Gentleman’s party left, and until Labour Members apologise for that legacy, no one is going to take them seriously.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Ellis. [Interruption.]

Michael Ellis: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Order. I did not want to hurry the hon. Gentleman, but we can hear his question when he has calmed down and when he is ready.

Michael Ellis: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rather ridiculous posturing by the Argentines at the G20 summit tries to hide the fact that it is they who are the real colonialists, because they wish to ignore the democratic wishes of the Falkland Islands people themselves?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is entirely right. At the heart of the UN charter is the concept of self-determination, which is why I think that the referendum is important. In many ways, we do not need it to happen in order to know the wishes of the Falkland islanders, which have always been clear, but none the less I think that it will underline that and people will be able to see that it is not Britain that is behaving in a colonialist way but that we are simply doing what the Falkland islanders want us to do.

Mark Hendrick: On the basis of what authority is the Prime Minister lecturing the eurozone when two and half years of his Government’s policies have driven this country into a double-dip recession?

David Cameron: I think that as a net contributor to and full member of the European Union we have every right to say what we think is necessary to fix the crisis. The hon. Gentleman talks about what has happened over the past two years, but I would make the point that 400,000 more people are in work than at the last general election. Unemployment was down this quarter and employment was up, and there are 840,000 more private sector jobs. It is tough and difficult but a rebalancing of our economy is taking place that involves more manufacturing and more exports and that is leading to private sector job growth.

Conor Burns: The Prime Minister referred in his statement to the changes of governance in the eurozone and the remorseless logic
	of being in a currency union. Those of us who have consistently called this right over the past 20 years have serious reservations about asking countries such as Greece, Spain and Portugal to make the democratic sacrifices that we ruled were unacceptable to the United Kingdom. Does he share our concern that when countries find they cannot change the policies of their Government through the ballot box, it could lead to profound instability in Europe?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, but the point that I would make in response is that it is not for us to tell those countries what to do. If countries want to join a currency union, understand that to make that currency union work they have to give up all sorts of sovereignty and freely enter into that bargain, that is a matter for them and not a matter for us. It is for us to decide whether we want to do that, which we do not, and—and, frankly, it is all right to do this—to give advice about what would make a eurozone work better than it is working today.

Stewart Hosie: The communiqué reads:
	“We are committed to adopting all necessary policy measures to strengthen demand, support global growth and restore confidence”
	and
	“enhance job creation”.
	I welcome monetary activism as one of the tools to help achieve that, but can the Prime Minister explain to the House how his Government’s austerity programme will do anything other than weaken demand, weaken growth and suppress demand for labour?

David Cameron: I make this simple point to the hon. Gentleman: if we did not have a credible plan for dealing with our debts and our deficit, our interest rates would not be below 2%. It is worth remembering that when this Government took office, Spanish and British interest rates were at the same level. Our rates are now below 2%, which is helpful for growth, for business and for home owners, and the Spanish have interest rates close to 7%. That is the point. The idea that if a country spent more, borrowed more and added to its debts, it would stimulate its economy is probably wrong.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. I gently say to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that if he wishes to conduct a running commentary on our proceedings, he is welcome to apply for a job at Wimbledon over the next fortnight, where his services might—or, alternatively, might not—be required.

Kwasi Kwarteng: What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of France’s deficit reduction plan?

David Cameron: I look carefully at what the French are both doing and saying and it seems to me that their plans to reduce their structural deficit are, if anything, more aggressive than our plans to reduce our structural deficit. I hear from the Opposition that we should learn lessons from France, and the fact is that the French have a deficit reduction programme, it is quite aggressive and they refer to the national debt as the enemy of France and the enemy of the left.

Jonathan Ashworth: Did not the G20 communiqué argue that advanced economies should pursue fiscal consolidation at a pace appropriate to support recovery? Why, then, is the Prime Minister pursuing fiscal consolidation at a pace that has contributed to a double-dip recession?

David Cameron: We are pursuing fiscal consolidation at a pace that is right for the British economy, which is why our interest rates are as low as they are.

Harriett Baldwin: Was the Prime Minister surprised to hear quite a lot of questions about stand-up comedians but that neither Tony Blair nor the Leader of the Opposition have ruled out joining the euro?

David Cameron: To be fair to the Leader of the Opposition, he has said that whether or not they will join the euro depends on how long he is Prime Minister, whereas the shadow Chancellor has said that they will not join the euro “in his political lifetime”, which gives us an interesting conflict—[ Interruption. ] For once, the shadow Chancellor has said something from a sedentary position with which I agree. He said that his political lifetime could be quite short—here’s hoping.

Mark Lazarowicz: On a more serious note—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. This outbreak of amity is very welcome, but I am sure that Members are united in wanting to hear Mr Mark Lazarowicz.

Mark Lazarowicz: On a more serious note about the euro, Greece now has a new Government, which indicates that it will accept the bail-out but wants some flexibility in how it is implemented. What will the G20 and other institutions do to meet that request? Of course Greece must accept its responsibilities, restructure its economy and all the rest of it, but at the same time is it not important that we show flexibility, so that we do not run the risk of the new Greek Government collapsing along with the deal and, as a result, bringing down not only Greece, but many others in the world community?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman asks an important question. It will be a decision for the Greeks to make in collaboration with the members of the European Union that have extended that money to Greece, of which we are not one, and of course the International Monetary Fund. The problem is that any delay in the terms of the memorandum effectively means more money going from those predominantly eurozone members to Greece, so those discussions have to be had; but other countries that are on track with the programmes that have been put in place will, I think, feel very uneasy about one country getting special terms. In the end, it will be a matter for the eurozone members and Greece to hammer this out between them.

Alec Shelbrooke: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on facing down the Argentine President and pointing out that we will not be bullied or have any silly stunts. Does that not contrast starkly with either giving away huge European rebates
	or cosying up to African dictators, and show once again that if we want someone to stand up for sovereignty and British interests, we need a Conservative Prime Minister?

David Cameron: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. It seemed to me important to try to make that point, not just to Argentina but—almost more to the point—to other countries, which sometimes go along with motions proposed at various international gatherings that are against the interests of the Falkland islanders because they have not heard their voice. People are now going to hear that voice, and I hope the world will listen.

Gavin Shuker: Is not the Prime Minister’s influence in and prescription for the world economy fatally undermined by the first double-dip recession in 37 years in this country?

David Cameron: The point about what we are saying about the world economy is that, in fact, we are part of the consensus on the need to stop the march to protectionism, to regulate the banks properly, to have credible fiscal plans so that interest rates are kept down, and to have proper monetary activism and structural reforms to deliver growth. That is what the world signed up to at the G20 and it is a consensus that the Labour party is completely out of.

Christopher Pincher: Given that the Leader of the Opposition seems to have identified the President of France as his special friend, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is worth reminding the right hon. Gentleman of the words of President Hollande, who said that growth cannot be generated by means of further public spending, because that needs to be reined in?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is entirely right—that is exactly what the President of France said. He knows that a credible plan to reduce the deficit is necessary to generate growth in any country, and that one is fatally undermined by the lack of that credibility. It is only the left in this country that thinks we can borrow our way out of debt.

Joan Walley: May I register the deep disappointment that the Prime Minister did not make the extra journey to attend the Rio+20 Earth summit? Given his remarks about growth, may I ask how he is making the links between the need to go beyond GDP and the importance of natural capital in the arguments and the growth objectives on the G20 agenda?

David Cameron: That is a perfectly fair question. My judgment was that having done the G8 and NATO summits, then the G20 and an important bilateral visit to Mexico—we should be linking up with the fastest-growing economies in the world—it was better to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to attend the Rio summit, which I believe made some important progress. This Government believe that, as well as GDP, we should be thinking about other measures of sustainability and
	well-being, and we are measuring those things for the first time in this country, which is giving something of a lead to others.

Mel Stride: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s support for free trade at the G20, and like him I believe that the free movement of peoples is important to free trade, but does he agree that it was a great dereliction of responsibility by the previous Government not to introduce transition arrangements in relation to those states that joined the EU in 2004?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It was the Conservative Opposition who warned that it was a bad decision to allow unencumbered access to British labour markets from countries such as Poland. We well remember being told, “You can’t talk about these things”, that it is somehow racist to discuss immigration, and all the rest of it. Year after year we had to put up with that nonsense, and to get a half-baked apology now is simply not good enough.

Gerald Kaufman: It was interesting to see that the Prime Minister treats correspondence from the President of Argentina in the same way as he treats correspondence from Members of the House. Will he make it clear beyond any equivocation that not only is the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands not open for negotiation, but it is not open for discussion in any forum whatever, and that the wishes of the people of the Falklands to remain British will prevail?

David Cameron: I can certainly give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. The referendum of the Falkland islanders will help us to deliver that in practice as well as in theory. Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that if he writes me a letter, I shall try to respond to it very speedily.

Anne Main: I share my right hon. Friend’s concerns about the sovereignties and powers that may be given over by some of the weaker countries. I am concerned that we are not having a debate about what sort of chimera will be created by those who will mop up those powers and sovereignties, and I urge my right hon. Friend to speak up strongly on the European Council this week. May we have a debate when he returns from the Council, to inform the House exactly how we are being protected against this newly created large superstate?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course there will be consequences if the eurozone members go ahead and form a more integrated eurozone, and it is very important that we protect Britain’s interests, particularly our interest in having a fair and open single market. On the issue of how we debate these things in Parliament, the Backbench Business Committee took over all the days for Back-Bench debates including, as I understand it, the time that was previously allotted by the Government for European debates in advance of European summits. So if the Backbench Business Committee wants to put in such debates, I am sure Foreign Office Ministers would be only too happy to answer those debates, which would help inform me before I go off to European Councils.

Gavin Williamson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is grossly hypocritical of the Argentine Government to demand talks on the Falklands, while at the same time refusing to accept a letter from the Falkland Island Government about talks?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a good point. There are a number of things about which the Falkland islanders would like to have proper discussions with Argentina—about the links between the Falklands and countries in Latin America; ordinary conversations that the Falkland Islands should be having with neighbouring countries. What is absolutely clear is that for that to happen, countries need to respect the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and the decision that people there make.

Karen Bradley: What benefits might my constituents see from an EU-US free trade agreement?

David Cameron: If we expanded trade between Britain and America as part of the EU expanding its trade with America, the benefits would be more goods and services and more jobs in the UK, and more opportunities to export. We might find particular advantages to Britain in some of the services fields, where we have very good companies that do not always get full access to US markets. In that way my hon. Friend’s constituents would benefit.

Marcus Jones: Despite the economic headwinds of the eurozone crisis, in the west midlands in the past year 4,000 jobs were lost in the public sector, but 81,000 jobs were created in the private sector. Does that not vindicate the Government’s strategy of reducing the deficit and keeping interest rates low?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. As I said, there are 400,000 more people in work than there were in May 2010. Of course we have seen some job reductions in the public sector, but they have been more than made up—several times made up—by the jobs that have increased in the private sector. That is the sort of rebalancing that our economy needs.

Nick de Bois: Will my right hon. Friend encourage business to look also beyond the EU to secure growth and future orders, and will he ensure that Government policies are designed to support business to do that and to break down often hidden protectionism in other markets?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Part of the Government’s strategy is to link Britain with some of the fastest growing countries in the world, and that is why I have personally taken trade missions to almost all of the G20 countries now, apart from Brazil and Argentina, and I hope to go to Brazil later this year. One of the most effective ways to break down trade barriers is through the EU trade deals. We have done one with Korea; we now need to do one with Japan, and there are many others in the pipeline.

Gloria De Piero: The Prime Minister has talked a lot about eradicating the debt. At the start of the Parliament he said he would eradicate it by the end of the Parliament. How is that timetable going?

David Cameron: The deficit has been reduced by a quarter in two years.

Andrew Bridgen: The Argentine Government and the media often repeat the claim that Argentina wants the Falkland Islands back. Does my right hon. Friend agree that no one can have something back that has never been theirs? Argentina has never had legal possession of the Falkland Islands, and unless it is the wish of the Falkland islanders themselves, it never will do.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend puts it very well; I could not have put it better myself. The key point is self-determination, and that is what the referendum will prove.

Neil Carmichael: Does the Prime Minister agree that the relative strength of the German economy is partly derived from the fact that it has a sensible approach to public finances, and that we should continue to promote that across Europe? Does he also agree that the importance of the European Central Bank needs to be further enhanced?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course, there is an enormous amount of pressure on Germany to do more to back the eurozone, and I understand and support some of that pressure, but we should remember that the German economy is so strong because it went into the recession with a budget surplus, whereas we had a budget deficit, and it had spent the previous 10 years getting more competitive, building up its industry and making sure its economy was balanced. Sadly, under the last Government we spent too much time imitating Greece, and not enough time imitating Germany.

Bob Stewart: It seems that 655 Argentines lost their lives in the Falklands war. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if Argentina were to restore proper sea and air links to the Falkland Islands, the families and loved ones of those in the Argentine cemetery would be able to visit it properly, which is what should happen?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. There is the air link with Chile. Obviously, if there were better relations, there could be air links with Argentina, but that has to be on the basis that Argentina respects the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and the decision that the people of the Falkland Islands are going to make. Another reason why the referendum is important is that it will put that beyond doubt, and perhaps that will allow better conversations to take place.

Charlie Elphicke: Is it not right that international problems such as tax avoidance should be dealt with internationally at meetings such as the G20 summit, particularly as in the UK tax avoidance by individuals and corporations increased massively during the past decade? Is it not wrong and morally repugnant for anyone to attack, belittle or undermine the Prime Minister in dealing with this, particularly as the Leader of the Opposition did in his remarks earlier?

David Cameron: I thank my hon. Friend for what he says and make the simple point that tax evasion is illegal and should be pursued properly. Of course there are things that people do to minimise their tax bill, whether it be investing in a pension or an ISA, but as the Chancellor has said, and I totally agree, there are some aggressive tax avoidance schemes that should be roundly condemned, and that is exactly what the Government are doing.

Mark Menzies: The Prime Minister has put support for British exports at the heart of Britain’s economic recovery. What comfort can industries in my constituency that export globally take from the Prime Minister’s work at the G20?

David Cameron: I very much enjoyed the visit that I made to my hon. Friend’s constituency and to BAE Systems where his constituents are doing excellent work in building the Typhoon aircraft, and we go on supporting the sales of that aircraft. There are a number of important contests at the moment, and the Government are absolutely behind BAE Systems in all of those.

Andrew Selous: Manufacturers in my constituency have told me of the important help that they have had from UK Trade and Investment recently—for example, the setting up of webinars in British high commissions and embassies to speak to customers overseas. What more can we do to help British business sell even more around the world?

David Cameron: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. He heard the figures earlier; some massive increases during the last two years to different countries. UKTI is doing a good job. Members on both
	sides of the House can help link UKTI to small and medium-sized enterprises in their own constituencies. I think that the figure is that if one in five of our SMEs that currently export moved to one in four, that would probably eradicate our trade deficit. That is an important agenda and I urge all Members of Parliament to help businesses in their constituency in this way.

John Baron: Given that no amount of moving the eurozone debt around the system, between bank and Government, can hide or conceal its scale, does the Prime Minister agree that the most important thing eurozone Governments can do to narrow the gap between what is spent and earned is introduce sweeping supply-side reforms and free up small businesses from the dead-weight of regulation?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Whether it is trying to make the eurozone work better, trying to increase growth in the European Union or trying to compete with the rest of the world more effectively, all those pathways lead back to supply-side reform, structural reform and deregulation initiatives to help make European countries more competitive. That is what Britain is standing up for in Europe. At the summit this Thursday and Friday I very much hope that in the growth plan there will be the very strong commitments we secured at the last two European Councils for these deep structural changes: completing the single market in services, in digital and in energy. All these can add to our GDP and mean jobs and livelihoods for people in our constituencies.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the Prime Minister and Members of the House for their succinctness, which enabled 41 Back Benchers to question the Prime Minister in 34 minutes of exclusively Back-Bench time.

Point of Order

Michael McCann: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During Work and Pensions questions, the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) said in reply to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) that he had not been rebuked by the UK Statistics Authority for misusing statistics. His memory might have failed him, because he was chastised for using misleading statistics on nationality and national insurance data, on work capability appeals and, while in opposition, on violent crime. How can the record be corrected?

Mr Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman has just done it. I hope that he will rest content with his efforts.

BILLS PRESENTED
	 — 
	Public Debt Management Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Ben Gummer, supported by Steve Baker, Karen Bradley, Damian Collins, Matthew Hancock, Margot James, Paul Maynard, Priti Patel, Mr Dominic Raab, Nicola Blackwood, Mr Marcus Jones and Jacob Rees-Mogg, presented a Bill to limit government budget deficits; to introduce a ceiling on public debt; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 November 2012 , and to be printed (Bill 29).

Ports Act 1991 (Amendment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Charlie Elphicke presented a Bill to make provision for the Ports Act 1991 to cease to have effect or application in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 30 November 2012, and to be printed (Bill 30).

Human Rights Act 1998 (Repeal and Substitution) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Charlie Elphicke, supported by Nadhim Zahawi, Matthew Hancock, Priti Patel, Mr Dominic Raab, Karen Bradley, Guy Opperman, Nicola Blackwood, Chris Heaton-Harris, Charlotte Leslie, Stephen Barclay and Harriet Baldwin, presented a Bill to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 and related legislation; to make provision for a bill of rights and responsibilities to apply to the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 March 2013, and to be printed (Bill 31).

Property Boundaries (Resolution of Disputes) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Charlie Elphicke presented a Bill to make provision for the resolution of disputes concerning the location or placement of the boundaries relating to the title of an estate in land; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 30 November 2012, and to be printed (Bill 32).

Children (Access to Parents) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Charlie Elphicke presented a Bill to require courts, local authorities and other bodies, when determining or enforcing issues of residence and contact, to operate under the presumption that the rights of a child include the right to grow up knowing and having access to and contact with both of the parents involved in the residence or contact case concerned; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 30 November 2012, and to be printed (Bill 33).

Energy Companies (Minimum Tariffs) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Thomas Docherty, supported by Mrs Mary Glindon, Iain McKenzie, Mr Andy Slaughter and Susan Elan Jones, presented a Bill to require energy companies to provide the cheapest available tariff to customers aged 75 or over; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 January 2013, and to be printed (Bill 34).

Financial Literacy (Curriculum) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Thomas Docherty, supported by Mrs Mary Glindon, Mr George Mudie, Mr Andrew Love and Pat Glass, presented a Bill to make provision for the inclusion of financial literacy in the national curriculum; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 January 2013, and to be printed (Bill 35).

Wild Animals in Circuses Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Thomas Docherty, supported by Mrs Mary Glindon, Angela Smith, Iain McKenzie, Mr Andy Slaughter Susan Elan Jones and Jim Fitzpatrick, presented a Bill to prohibit the use of wild animals in circuses; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 January, and to be printed (Bill 36).

Water Companies (Social Tariffs) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Thomas Docherty, supported by Mrs Mary Glindon, Iain McKenzie, Mr Andy Slaughter and Susan Elan Jones, presented a Bill to require water companies to provide social tariffs for low income families; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 January 2013, and to be printed (Bill 37).

Water Companies (Minimum Tariffs) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Thomas Docherty, supported by Mrs Mary Glindon, Iain McKenzie, Mr Andy Slaughter and Susan Elan Jones, presented a Bill to require water companies to provide the cheapest available tariff to customers aged 75 or over; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 January 2012, and to be printed (Bill 38).

Commercial Lobbyists (Registration and Code of Conduct) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Thomas Docherty, supported by Paul Flynn and Iain McKenzie, presented Bill to establish a public register of organisations and individuals that carry out lobbying of Parliament, the Government and local authorities for financial gain; to introduce a code of conduct for those on the register; to introduce sanctions for non-registration and non-compliance with the code of conduct; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 February 2013, and to be printed (Bill 39).

Armed Forces (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Thomas Docherty, supported by Mrs Mary Glindon, Ms Gisela Stuart, Derek Twigg and Sandra Osborne, presented a Bill to provide that certain offences committed towards members of the armed forces shall be treated as aggravated; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 February 2013, and to be printed (Bill 40).

Executive Pay and Remuneration Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Thomas Docherty, supported by Sheila Gilmore, Katy Clark and Ian Lavery, presented a Bill to require that companies’ remuneration committees have employee representation; to require that companies hold an annual binding shareholder vote on
	executive remuneration; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 February 2013, and to be printed (Bill 41).

Train Companies (Minimum Fares) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Thomas Docherty, supported by Sheila Gilmore, Iain McKenzie, Katy Clark, Geraint Davies and Graeme Morrice, presented a Bill to require train companies to offer customers the cheapest available fare as a first option; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 February 2013, and to be printed (Bill 42).

Homeowners’ Mortgage Interest Rates Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Thomas Docherty, supported by Mr Andrew Love, presented a Bill to require that mortgage interest rates paid by homeowners change by at least the same percentage as mortgage interest base rates; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 February 2013, and to be printed (Bill 43).

Offshore Gambling Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Matthew Hancock, supported by Miss Anne McIntosh, Brandon Lewis, Simon Hart, Mr Gerry Sutcliffe, Mr Don Foster, Sandra Osborne, Ben Gummer, Nicholas Soames
	and Charlie Elphicke, presented a Bill to amend the Gambling Act 2005 to regulate remote gambling on a point of consumption basis; to require all operators selling into the British market, whether in the United Kingdom or overseas, to hold a Gambling Commission licence to enable them to undertake transactions with British consumers and to advertise in the United Kingdom; to provide that all relevant operators contribute to the Horserace Betting Levy; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2013, and to be printed (Bill 44).

Land Value Tax Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Caroline Lucas, supported by Mr Adrian Sanders, Kelvin Hopkins and Martin Horwood, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to commission a programme of research into the merits of replacing the Council Tax and Non-domestic rates in England with an annual levy on the unimproved value of all land, including transitional arrangements; to report to Parliament within 12 months of completion of the research; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 November 2012, and to be printed (Bill 45).

Micro Businesses and Energy Contract Roll-over Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Caroline Lucas presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to make provision to limit energy contract rollover for micro businesses to 30 days; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2013, and to be printed (Bill 46).

Landlord Accreditation Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Caroline Lucas presented a Bill to require local authorities to operate landlord accreditation schemes; to set those schemes according to minimum standards; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 March 2013, and to be printed (Bill 47).

Football (financial Transparency) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Damian Collins, supported by Dr Thérèse Coffey, Philip Davies, Thomas Docherty, Paul Farrelly, Mrs Mensch, Penny Mordaunt, Steve Rotheram, Mr Adrian Sanders, Jim Sheridan, Mr Gerry Sutcliffe and Mr John Whittingdale, presented a Bill to require a football club playing in the top four tiers of English and Scottish professional football to disclose the identity of its owner, the identity of the owner of its home playing ground, training ground, any intellectual property associated with the club or a third party stake in its players and the identities of outstanding creditors; to require all creditors of a football club to be compensated equally should the club go into administration; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2013, and to be printed (Bill 48).

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

[Relevant documents: The Tenth Report from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, Session 2010-12, on Individual Electoral Registration and Electoral Administration, HC 1463, and the Government’s response thereto, Cm 8245.]

[2nd Allocated Day]

Further  considered in Committee

[Dawn Primarolo in the Chair]

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6
	 — 
	Power to amend or abolish the annual canvass

Angela Smith: I beg to move amendment 22, page5,leave out line 27.

Dawn Primarolo: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 24, page5,line27,at end insert—
	‘(2A) If the Minister considers it appropriate to proceed with the making of an order under subsection (2), the Minister must lay before Parliament—
	(a) a draft of the order, and
	(b) an explanatory document explaining the proposals.
	(2B) Sections 15 to 19 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 (choosing between negative, affirmative and super-affirmative parliamentary procedure) are to apply in relation to an explanatory document and draft order laid under subsection (2) but as if references to section 14 of that Act were references to subsection (2).’.
	Amendment 23, page5,leave out lines 28 and 29.
	Amendment 25, page5,line32,after ‘section’, insert
	‘with the exception of an order made under subsection (2)’.
	Amendment 27, in clause7,page6,line7,leave out ‘give a copy of the report to the Minister’ and insert
	‘lay a copy of the report before Parliament’.
	Amendment 28,page6,line9,leave out subsection (4) and insert—
	‘(4) The report must be laid before Parliament no sooner than three months beginning with the day on which the Commission is consulted, and no later than five months beginning with that same day.’.
	Amendment 29, in clause8,page6,line28,at end insert—
	‘(3A) The Minister may only make a pilot scheme once written approval from the Electoral Commission has been received.
	(3B) Any such written approval must be published by the Minister.’.
	Amendment 26, in clause10,page7,line34,at end insert
	‘, with the exception of an order made under section 6(2)’.

Angela Smith: Clause 6 and the amendments to it deal with the possibility of amending or abolishing the annual canvass, and with the arrangements for the accountability relating to any such decision.
	It is worth going through, once again, the principles of the annual canvass, which were, to some extent, rehearsed last week in relation to clause 4 when we talked of the importance of proactive methods for encouraging registration, and of the exercise by individuals of the business of re-registering their presence on the electoral register. More often than not, the business of registering to vote is seen as an exercise in democratic participation, and as a right, enshrined in law and hard won over the centuries by many who made huge sacrifices to secure it, but the House should remember that it is also a duty and a responsibility.
	We live in a society in which the relationship between the individual and the state is governed by democracy. We have, of course, government by consent, but implied in the concept of democracy and government by consent is the view that vital to the process is majority participation in the most important decision of all—who should govern our nation. That is why Labour Members were so appalled by the Government’s initial proposal that citizens should have the right to opt out of the democratic process, and it is why in turn it is right that there should be a civic penalty for refusing to acknowledge the responsibilities inherent within the concept of government by consent.
	Registering to vote, therefore, is an important part of the democratic culture of our country, and I repeat what I said last week: we should always bear in mind the importance of perspective when considering the process of electoral registration. If we consider it important that citizens of this country see registration as an important right and an important duty, we should ensure that our approach to registration encourages the regular exercise of such a duty and the active involvement of the citizen in the process by way of the regular renewal of that right. That is why we have tabled amendment 22, which, along with amendment 23, would remove the Minister’s right to abolish the annual canvass.
	At this point it is interesting to consider what the Minister said about the arrangements for 2014 before he conceded that an annual canvass was required. He said:
	“Effectively, what we are going to do is a modified canvass, which focuses the resources exactly where you need to work harder. We will write to everybody individually who is on the 2013 register and ask them to register individually. Where we have any households where there is nobody on the register, they will receive the household form in the usual way. They will send it back. You will then approach each of the people on that form individually to register. Where electoral registration offices have information that people have moved, so for example from the day-to-day, already-used council tax records, housing benefit records, they will write to people directly to see who is at the household and then chase them up.”
	It is clear that the Minister was planning what he refers to as a “modified canvass” in 2014 based on the 2013 register—compiled, of course, from a full annual canvass in October of the latter year.
	The Minister needs to answer these key questions. Is what I have just mentioned the kind of arrangement that he envisages for the future under clause 6(1) and which he plans to introduce via the provisions in clause 6? If that is the case, the House would appreciate some detail about when he thinks the arrangement might be introduced. Are we talking about 2015 or 2016? Does he have plans to mix and match the approaches so that there are modified canvasses, with a full canvass perhaps every five years? The Committee would like to know before making its mind up about clause 6, given that it gives the Minister the right to make those changes.
	If the Minister is considering a mixed approach, it stands to reason that he would be conceding the Opposition argument that the abolition of the annual canvass was likely to lead to a long-term drop-off in the numbers registered. Moreover, it is also likely to lead to distortions in the accuracy of the register. An annual canvass is a good way of spot-checking that the assumed stability of a given majority on any register is based on sound continuing evidence.
	Finally, I draw attention to the views of the Electoral Commission. It is urging the Minister to confirm the commencement date for the new individual registration provisions, and it is recommending that the date be 1 July 2014. That begs a few questions. If we commence individual registration on 1 July 2014 with the modified canvass arrangements outlined by the Minister, which I cited earlier, when will the full canvass, which most Members have assumed will take place, commence? Are we looking at February that year? If not, when exactly are we going to move into the transition phase? What period will elapse before the Government move to the first phase of individual electoral registration in transition and the use of the carry-over provisions? All those questions are worthy of answers and underline how crucial it is for the Government to get on with the job of publishing an implementation plan.
	The Opposition believe that commencement should take place only when the Electoral Commission indicates that completeness is at such a level that we can feel secure about participation at the ballot box. It is therefore doubly important that we get that information on the Floor of the House sooner rather than later. To go back to the main point of the discussion, are we going to get a full canvass, as we understand it under the old system, at all in 2014, or is the Minister intending to proceed only on the basis of a modified canvass? I look forward to his response on those points.
	The annual canvass has an important role to play in our democracy, and Labour Members believe that it is crucial that registration should be brought regularly to the attention of the people. However, we are not the only ones who believe that. Take the comments made by the Deputy Prime Minister himself, alongside the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), in “Liberal Democrat Voice” in November 2010, when they said to Lib Dem members:
	“In the light of today’s news that 3.5 million voters are missing from the electoral register, and in view of the forthcoming boundary changes based on the number of voters on the electoral roll as it stands next month, a timely e-mail reminder today to Liberal Democrat members from Nick Clegg and Simon Hughes:
	I’m sure you will agree that we as Liberal Democrats need to play our part in helping to ensure that everybody who should have the right to vote is in a position to exercise that right come next May.”
	They went on to say:
	“Once you have made sure your form is safely completed please take a moment to check family and friends have filled out theirs too. Getting half a dozen of your friends signed up to vote could make the difference in a tight election next May.
	Making democracy work is something all politicians should be committed to, and we are proud to encourage Liberal Democrats to play our part.”
	It is therefore absolutely apparent that Liberal Democrat Members do place faith in the annual canvass and see that it has an important role to play in maximising completeness of the register.
	Amendments 22 and 23 lie at the heart of Labour’s belief that we need a proactive approach to citizenship and a belt-and-braces approach to electoral registration. We believe, too, that there is no need for major concern over the potential cost and efficiency of the annual canvass. It has been mooted by the Minister that the cost of an annual canvass, if it is based on a form being filled in by the head of the household followed by invitations to register being sent to every household member listed on every form, would be in the region of £50 million. However, as we move away from paper-based approaches to this activity, it is entirely feasible for the annual check on registration to take place online. I am confident that Members believe that, in the long term, electoral registration processes should be moved online once it is secure and safe to do so. In those circumstances, a full annual canvass of the electoral register would not be an expensive or inefficient process to undertake. Just as at the moment individuals get regular reminders online about various important matters such as the need to renew insurance or TV licences, then equally it should be possible to make provision for annual online reminders to renew registration of the right to vote. That, surely, is where we all want to get to in order to ensure that the resources provided for registration can be concentrated on the hard to reach. The key point is that the possibility of cheap and efficient online processes would make the annual canvass easier to maintain in terms of cost and administration.
	The amendments relate to clauses 7, 8 and 10, as well as clause 6, and are all designed to strengthen the role of Parliament in scrutinising any proposal by the Minister to amend the annual canvass. For the reasons I have outlined, we believe that it is important that any decisions taken are exposed to the strongest possible scrutiny by Parliament. Moreover, we believe that the Minister should be able to proceed with pilot schemes related to changes in canvassing arrangements only with the written approval of the Electoral Commission, hence amendment 29 to clause 8. This is a matter of major concern to the Committee. Labour Members expect the Minister to make a full and considered response to the points made in the debate.

Mark Williams: I concur with many of the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), but as regards her quoting of the Deputy Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), I think that the aspirations they alluded to are shared by everybody in the Committee.
	As the Minister and others will be aware from the Liberal Democrat submission to the consultation on this issue, we believe that the annual canvass is important and that it should continue. I want to ask the Minister about his reasoning for the discussions that have taken place so far and what tests or standards will have to be passed before the annual canvass is abolished. I understand the point in the explanatory notes that in years to come
	the annual canvass may no longer be needed because of the online opportunities for registration, to which the hon. Lady alluded. I am a bit more of a sceptic about that because I represent a rural area where the internet is not universally available. It will also be difficult to deem the register perfect at any point as it is constantly changing. What test would have to be passed to deem the annual canvass no longer useful?
	The Bill gives electoral registration officers a new duty to maintain the all-important accuracy and completeness, which I welcome. How will they fulfil that duty without a canvass? In other words, how will the Minister ensure that that duty on electoral registration officers is tested?
	The Bill provides for the Electoral Commission to be consulted if the annual canvass is to be abolished. That is clear. However, I understand that the Electoral Commission has concerns about why it would not be consulted if the annual canvass were to be reinstated. The Government have said that it is conceivable that that might have to be undertaken in a short time frame. However, the Electoral Commission has said that it has often been required to respond to Cabinet Office consultations in a limited time frame and that it does not believe that the requirement to consult would delay the process unduly. More importantly, it is essential that there is a mechanism for external scrutiny of any step that is taken in a short time frame.
	On Second Reading, I expressed concerns about the abolition of the canvass. I noticed my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House wincing slightly when I made that point. He said that there is an obligation, if it is necessary, to reinstate the canvass. That reassured me, but I am concerned about the mechanisms by which such a reinstatement would have the consent of the Electoral Commission. I also have questions about why the annual canvass may need to be abolished.
	I am heartened by what Ministers have said about the data-matching pilots and by the aspiration for online voting. However, we have a long way to go and, in the interim, I believe that we still need the annual canvass.

Frank Dobson: The annual canvass has been, and for the moment still is, the principal method by which we keep the electoral register up to date and accurate, in so far as it is up to date and accurate. I do not think that anyone believes that the current situation is satisfactory, but what we want is improvement, not reduction.
	My constituency is rather strange in nature, not simply because it has elected me in eight successive elections, but because it has a huge electorate. It numbered some 87,000 people at the last general election and I understand from the registration officer that the total is now 94,000 electors. That gives me 26,000 more electors than the Deputy Prime Minister and, remarkably, 26,000 more than the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper).
	Equally different is the turnover of electors, which in my constituency is phenomenal. It has always been high, partly because of the large number of students and young people in the area. People arrive and get a job, and then they decide that they would be better off doing the same job in Lincoln, Scunthorpe or Bolton, usually because the cost of renting or buying a house would be much lower.
	We have a massive turnover all the time, and the Government’s proposed housing benefit changes, which will be introduced at the same time as proposals in the Bill, will also lead to an increased movement of people—they will certainly move out of the area, but I am not sure whether they will come in—so the coalition’s social cleansing policies will have an effect on the need for the canvass. The Prime Minister’s latest essay—he wants to knock off housing benefit given to anyone under 25—is also likely to increase turnover in my area.
	It is worth reporting that, last year, for the whole of Camden, the annual canvass added 27,000 electors, but also deducted 27,000 electors, which reflects the massive turnover in both my constituency and the Hampstead and Kilburn constituency. It also indicates that the annual canvass is important from the point of view not just of numbers, but of accuracy—it is the principal means by which people who are no longer entitled to vote disappear off the register. The Government and some outside the House who are fanatical about their proposals seem to ignore that.
	The annual canvass is the bedrock of the current system—it is not peripheral; it is at the heart of it. Any other means that the Government propose to improve electoral registration, both so that the 6 million people who are entitled to be on the register get on it, and so that the register is accurate, must be introduced only to augment the annual canvass. The canvass still does an important task, and is likely—this is my opinion, and no more—to carry it out more effectively than the proposals.
	It seems totally improper to suggest that the annual canvass could disappear before we know the overall effects of all the new changes. Even if the Opposition have tabled no amendment to that effect in Committee, we should perhaps table one on Report. I would hope all hon. Members agree that an annual canvass must be carried out if the numbers come down as a result of the changes, and that we cannot accept a reduction in the number of people on the registers.
	Government Members have once or twice quoted judges who have said that registration is currently like something we might find in a banana republic. I suspect that most banana republics would like to give a Minister, without parliamentary approval, the right to end an annual canvass. Nothing should be left to the Minister’s discretion. If anything, the decision should come straight to the House from the Electoral Commission.

Kevan Jones: Any hon. Member who has played the role of election observer in different parts of the world will know that electoral observation organisations apply themselves to one key thing: ensuring the accuracy of the electoral register. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) said, the canvass is an integral part of the electoral system, not only to ensure that there is no fraud—cases in certain communities have been highlighted—but to ensure that the register is as accurate and up to date as possible. As an ex-local councillor and an MP, I think it would give the person elected at a local council or other election confidence if they knew that the majority of electors were registered to vote. I accept that the annual canvass is more difficult to undertake in certain parts of the country than in others, but it will concentrate people’s minds on ensuring that they are on the electoral register.
	On leaving it to the individual, having had many years’ experience as a local councillor, a Member of Parliament and an election agent, I know that modern life is busy and that people ignore forms when they arrive. It might come as a big surprise to many hon. Members to learn that most of our electors do not sit around waiting for their electoral registration form; they do not see it as important. Likewise, it is not top of people’s list of things to do when they move house, along with the electricity and everything else.
	In the communities described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras, there is a massive turnover in the electorate, but even in rural constituencies such as mine there are areas of huge turnover, owing to demographics and the type of housing. In parts of Stanley, in my constituency, which has many private sector landlords, the housing turnover is remarkable—it can change two or three times a year. I do not have his general problem with massive turnovers, but we have pockets of high turnover, and ensuring that they are on the electoral register is not the first thing people do when they move from one social landlord to another.
	That leads to another issue. Unfortunately, some of those private sector tenants are in the poorest parts of my constituency, and are the people who need representation the most. They need to ensure that they cast their democratic vote at the parish, town or, in the case of Durham, county council election, and for their MP at a general election. It is important that we hear their voices. I am not sure whether this is the Conservative party’s thinking, but I fear that the areas most disadvantaged by there not being an annual canvass will be among the poorest in the country. That will have a knock-on effect on the redrawing of constituency boundaries and the nonsense we will have to go through every five years because of this coalition Government’s proposals. It is just as important, however, that the redrawing of local county, district and town council boundaries provides an adequate indication of the local electorate.

Nick Smith: I support my hon. Friend’s emphasis on the annual canvass. I used to work as agent for my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), and I well remember the fluid population and our efforts to support voting, electoral registration and the annual canvass—efficient though the canvass, organised by Camden council, was. Does he agree that it is important to work with the private sector, particularly in these fast-changing times, to support data matching, particularly in respect of records that could support electoral registration? Such data matching could only boost electoral registration and get more people involved in the democratic process.

Kevan Jones: I agree with my hon. Friend, although data matching has its limitations, given the turnover in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras and in pockets of my constituency. We cannot leave it entirely to data matching, which is a useful tool but it will not get over the key problem of ensuring that the local register is as accurate as possible.
	On the use of the private sector, let me provide the example of the new Durham county council. Before the formation of the unitary county council three years
	ago, seven district councils were responsible for electoral registration in County Durham. I have to say that their performance was patchy—some were good and some were bad. One benefit of the new county council taking responsibility for the register is a uniformity of approach. The county council put in extra effort when it was formed and contracted a company to do a full canvass to ensure that the register was as accurate as possible. That process—credit to the county council for doing it—put an extra 12,000 people on to the electoral register. I must thank the council, as that affected the size and the distributions when the parliamentary constituency boundaries and the new county council wards were redrawn. With 12,000 added through an intensive canvass, it shows what can be done in a rural county such as County Durham. I am not sure what would happen if that were not done in a constituency such as that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras, for example. As I say, this has proved to be useful for the process.
	The county council went down the road of ensuring as full a canvass as possible for another reason. I and others had noticed that entire streets or parts of them were missing altogether from the register. Was it that people living there suddenly decided in sequential order that they were not going to register? I do not think so. It was the consequence of errors made in the data inputting, so the canvass helped to identify the streets affected. I was aware of the problem and so were councils, and I believe that the gaps were raised by all political parties. The annual canvass is important for areas such as mine that have elections only every four years. Political parties out canvassing can sometimes spot mistakes and draw them to the attention of the electoral returning officer. Having an annual canvass becomes more important where elections are not annual, when these problems are likely to be less visible to the various political parties that are standing.
	An annual canvass is important, too, for care homes and residential homes, some of which, alas, have quite a large turnover, with residents coming in and out of respite care and, unfortunately, with people dying during the year. If we are not careful, the register will get badly out of shape in respect of people living in residential and sheltered accommodation and in care homes. It might be said that it affects only 30 or 40 people at a time in each care home, but if we add that up across County Durham, it means a lot of individuals. I am not criticising any individuals running care homes and similar organisations, but when a resident unfortunately dies it is not the top priority to write to the electoral registration officer to say that someone has passed on and that they are going to re-register the new individual living there. This is another example, therefore, of where an annual canvass helps. In my experience, the residential care manager or owner can be quite helpful in ensuring that the information provided is as accurate as possible. It is obviously not nice for any political party to send direct mail, as we all do, to homes where people are deceased, so an annual canvass could be an effective way of helping to ensure that that is prevented.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras Friend touched on the issue of students. My constituency does not contain a large student population, but the city of Durham certainly does, and any Member whose constituency contains a large number of students
	will know that there is quite a high turnover. I am thinking not just of the halls of residence that exist in parts of Newcastle that I know very well, and in parts of Durham, but of the fact that students move around and may not stay in the same house for two or three years. Members of that large population—who, I hasten to add, are using local services—are not reflected in any of the data, not only in terms of voting but in terms of electoral boundaries. They are nowhere to be seen. I think that the annual canvass has helped in that regard. Durham county council undertook an exercise to ensure that its register was as up to date as possible, and found that the number of voters in the city of Durham had increased by nearly 4,500. I suspect that most of them were students.
	My right hon. Friend also mentioned welfare benefit changes. People with an extra bedroom are to lose their right to a proportion of their housing benefit, which I expect to increase the amount of movement, certainly in my constituency. I do not know what will happen in parts of London, where people are on a kind of merry-go-round, moving constantly from one type of social housing to another. That increase in movement will make the annual canvass more important. In parts of my constituency, such as Stanley and Chester-le-Street, there is a large concentration of private sector landlords. Once the benefit changes come into effect, people will move, because they will no longer be able to afford to live in their homes. How can we reflect that in the register?
	What I am going to say now may sound strange, but it is a fact. In the north-east of England, the legacy of those infamous old days of the poll tax remains. People used not to register because they thought that that would be a way of getting out of paying the tax. In parts of my constituency that thinking remains, and people still refer to council tax as “the poll tax” . That did a lot of damage to people’s awareness of the civic duty to register, which I have always found to be very strong among older members of the population. They tend always to send in the forms and to vote, but that poll tax legacy is still there. I suspect that the only way of tackling it is to knock on people’s doors and ask them who lives in their houses.
	There is another issue, which does not affect my constituency. I was very saddened by the way in which the last Government reacted to the Daily Mail agenda. Mine was one of the few constituencies that experimented with all-postal ballots, which were very successful. According to the Electoral Commission’s report, there was, overall, a very small amount of fraud, and the fraud that did occur was concentrated mainly in certain types of community in such places as Birmingham and Bradford. In one county council by-election in my constituency there was a 67% turnout under the postal ballot system. Sadly, however, the last Government and the Electoral Commission took fright following headlines that focused—rightly—on fraud that had taken place in some inner-city, mainly Asian, communities.

Mark Tami: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. The key is finding a way of increasing turnout. If turnout increases, fraud becomes far more difficult, because it is not so easy to influence the result. Low turnouts, and low registration, make fraud easier.

Kevan Jones: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I was about to make the following observation: if we want to clamp down on fraud, we must ensure that the register is as accurate as possible. The only way of doing that is by knocking on doors and actually talking to people in the communities concerned. If we have a more accurate register, that will lead to less electoral fraud.
	I do not understand why this measure has been proposed. I will support any step that helps to ensure the register is up to date, such as data matching, but the annual canvass should be our fall-back position. Whatever system we use—telephone calls, data matching or even door knocking —will we never achieve 100% elector registration, but the canvass will help us spot homes that are being used for electoral fraud.
	We sometimes find that there are children as young as five or six on the electoral register, because parents have misunderstood the form and entered their names on it. [Interruption.] Well, I am sure they do vote in some places, but knocking on doors and conducting the annual canvass is a way of preventing that. I therefore do not understand why the annual canvass is not seen as an exercise that should be welcomed. From speaking to the individuals who carry it out, it appears to be difficult to do, however. Indeed, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras it must at times be near-impossible to keep track, and to gain access to some of the properties.

Angela Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to maintain the annual canvass because although a local authority might know who the council tax payers are within a household, there might also be lodgers living there? If the annual canvass is abolished, such people may well not get on to the electoral register.

Kevan Jones: My hon. Friend makes a very good point.
	I do not think I have a single high-rise block in my constituency—the highest buildings are about four storeys—but there are such blocks in the part of Newcastle I used to represent, and the turnover of residents was often very high. Finding out who pays the council tax gives an idea of who is living in any given household, however. We must also recognise that modern-day families and lives can be very complicated.
	We all know from our experiences of canvassing for our political parties that even getting into some tower blocks can be difficult. One advantage councils have is that they can gain access, so they can get inside and talk to people, but that can be done only if we have an annual canvass.
	Some people say we should use the telephone for canvassing, but in certain parts of my constituency telephone ownership is still quite low. Ownership of mobile phones is sometimes higher than use of static lines with numbers that people can declare in their local telephone directory. That presents a problem, too.
	I want to end where I began. We in this country pride ourselves on having the mother of Parliaments and a long democratic tradition, and any Member who has performed election monitoring duties around the world will know that one of the key points we always emphasise is the importance of the accuracy of the register. Any step that leads to our register not being as accurate as
	possible will damage both our electoral processes locally and the international reputation of our country as being somewhere where we ensure elections are free and fair and everyone has their democratic right to vote.

David Heath: I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Primarolo, and to return to what is a very important Bill. We have reached clause 6, and it is important for Members who have not had the opportunity to study the Bill in as much detail as they might like to realise that the clause is qualified by those that follow, so they need to be read together.
	The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) has tabled a series of amendments this afternoon, none of which has an explanatory memorandum. Back-Bench Members—for example, the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord)—could manage an explanatory memorandum but apparently, the official Opposition could not. That is a great shame, given what the Procedure Committee has asked us to do, but never mind—let us address the issues.
	A casual observer of this debate would believe that the Government are proceeding willy-nilly with the abolition of the annual canvass and that the Labour party has a principled opposition to abolition, whereas in fact, neither of those propositions is correct. First, we have made it abundantly clear that we do not intend to get rid of the annual canvass, certainly in the immediate future. In fact, only one Government have abolished the annual canvass: the last Labour Government, who abolished it in 2006 for Northern Ireland. So, we are talking about the canvass for Great Britain only, not for the whole of the United Kingdom, because Labour did not feel that all these pressing arguments in favour of the annual canvass applied when they peremptorily removed it in Northern Ireland’s case. We must therefore listen to their arguments in that context.

Kevan Jones: Will the Minister give way?

David Heath: Of course I will give way to the hon. Gentleman—who voted for the removal of the annual canvass.

Kevan Jones: I am not taking any lessons from the Liberal Democrats, who, frankly, promised a lot of things and then voted against them in this place. Come on—the Minister knows why that was done in Northern Ireland: it was a question of the practicalities of doing the canvass. To draw an analogy between that and today’s proposal is absolute nonsense.

David Heath: I am afraid that it is simply incorrect to say that the argument was about anything other than the introduction of individual electoral registration. That was the argument and the reason why the previous Government acted as they did, and they made no attempt to bring the provision back.
	Setting aside that argument, we have also had assertions that Ministers intend to remove, by decree, the annual canvass. However, anyone who actually reads the legislation can see clearly that the procedure as set out first requires a report of the Electoral Commission—uniquely—and affirmative resolution. Therefore, it is Parliament, not
	Ministers, who would decide whether it was appropriate to take such action, an important safeguard that the House really should not ignore.

Angela Smith: rose —

David Heath: The hon. Lady made the assertion, I think, that Ministers would take such action by decree; so she can now justify that.

Angela Smith: There is no need for us to justify anything in this regard. Through our amendment, we are saying that we believe that the super-affirmative and regulatory reform procedures should be deployed if there is any plan to abolish the annual canvass. In the end, there is a provision in clause 6 to abolish the annual canvass. All we are asking for is the strongest possible scrutiny of any such decision—a reasonable thing for any Opposition to ask for—and that any report made by the Electoral Commission be laid before Parliament and not just sent to the Minister.

David Heath: I wish that that was what the hon. Lady had put forward in her amendments, but she goes rather further than that. On that specific issue, a super-affirmative procedure is set out in the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006—it is rarely used in this jurisdiction—and the reason for it is to make sure that proper consultation takes place on a proposal, so that Parliament is in the best possible position to make up its mind on an issue. That is set out clearly in the Bill, because before any order can be brought forward there has to be a report from the Electoral Commission. So a form of super-affirmative procedure is set out in this proposal. It allows Parliament—both Houses of Parliament—to take a decision, having had the evidence placed before it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) made an important point in supporting what we are proposing when he said that the annual canvass serves a valuable purpose. I believe that too, as do the Government. He accepts that there may be circumstances in which we would want to change, but he wants to know what hurdle the House and the Government would wish there to be. I have to say to him clearly that the only argument for abolishing the annual canvass—this is unlike what happened in Northern Ireland under the previous Government, where it was peremptorily done—is because we believe, with evidence to back this up from the Electoral Commission and from others, that other arrangements, which have been trialled through pilot schemes, are more effective, or certainly no less effective, than the annual canvass in ensuring both the accuracy and the completeness of the register. That is the Government’s intention, as it has been throughout this legislation. We are aiming to ensure both completeness and accuracy. We often do not hear about the second point from the Opposition, although I accept that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who has a lot of experience in this field, rightly mentioned it. So often we hear a lot about completeness from the Labour Front Benchers, but little about accuracy.

Angela Smith: The Minister is yet to answer the key points we raised in tabling these amendments and speaking to them. First, if the Government are so confident of their arrangements for making a change to individual
	registration, why do they not publish the implementation plan and put it in the Bill? Secondly, given previous comments made by the Deputy Leader of the House and the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), it would be good to hear exactly what the Government mean by “annual canvass”. Labour Members take that to mean the usual, traditional approach, which involves writing to every household and then, under individual registration, invitations to register on the basis of the members of any household whose details are returned to the electoral registration officer. What exactly will the annual canvass in 2014 consist of?

David Heath: I am not exactly clear what the hon. Lady even means by her first question. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but I do not know what an “implementation plan” is in the context of primary legislation. The Bill is clear about what we are proposing. The implementation of that is not a matter that is normally set out in primary legislation—the intent and the outcome is what is there. She mentions the canvass, and I would have thought that it was abundantly clear what we mean: there is the basis of the canvass, with which we are all familiar, but it will have additional purposes and additional mechanisms under what we are proposing—in order to improve its accuracy and its completeness—which we have already set out. So additional data matching will take place—the sort of thing that the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) was talking about. It will inform the canvass and ensure that the right questions are asked to the right people in the right places, to make sure that as many people as possible who are entitled to vote are put on the register.

Angela Smith: The Minister is being generous with his time. May I therefore press the point? Will the annual canvass promised in 2014, on which the general election in 2015 will be based with the carry-over provisions that have been made available, be carried out in the traditional way understood by every Member of this House?

David Heath: Yes. The canvass that would have been carried out in 2013, which we have moved to early 2014, will be done in the traditional way. The hon. Lady knows that we are taking advice from the various political parties and others about the exact date that will be most effective. That will be a full household canvass and during 2014, after the European elections, we will move on to the other components of the proposals so that we have the use of all available material and can, as I have repeatedly said, make the register as complete and accurate as possible.

Frank Dobson: rose —

David Heath: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman made a late but very compelling argument for the equalisation of parliamentary constituencies, and I am grateful to him for that. I invite his participation.

Frank Dobson: I seem to attract snotty remarks from those on the Government Front Bench. All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I have been snotted at by better men than him.
	If the Government are so confident that the new methods of putting all this together, which they described in their evidence to the House of Lords as providing a more efficient means of obtaining information rather than a more effective one, and believe that the system will result in registers exceeding the numbers presently arrived at by the household canvass, will they guarantee not to proceed until they have the registers up to the level that the previous household canvass produced?

David Heath: I repeat again to the right hon. Gentleman that we are not getting rid of the household canvass and it is very difficult to answer his question, which is based on the premise that we are removing it, when we are not doing so. Incidentally, were the circumstances to occur in which this part of the Bill was used to remove the duty for an annual canvass—as I have said, that would happen only if we, the Electoral Commission and both Houses of Parliament were satisfied that other mechanisms were in place that would be as effective or more effective than the annual canvass—the situation would continue to be monitored. If, despite the advice of the Electoral Commission and the best intentions of Ministers and this House, it unexpectedly proved that the proportion of the population that registered was substantially reduced, there is provision within the Bill to reinstate the canvass. Unfortunately, amendment 23, tabled by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, would remove that power. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) asked a specific question and I can give him an absolute assurance that the power to reinstate the canvas is in the Bill, should it be needed.

Frank Dobson: rose —

David Heath: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, of course, and I hope that I do so charmingly.

Frank Dobson: The hon. Gentleman has said that there is a power to reinstate the canvass, but is there an obligation to reinstate it if the new system is not working?

David Heath: I do not think that Parliament is normally required to do anything, and this will be a power for Parliament, not for Ministers. We would be treading a strange constitutional path if this Parliament were to require any future Parliament to make any enactment. The power is there to reinstate the canvass without the need for further primary legislation in order to enable the then Government, whoever they are, to react promptly and effectively if necessary. I honestly do not believe that will apply because there are no circumstances in which the annual canvass would be removed without its being absolutely clear, from all the information to hand, that it would not have a detrimental effect on the completeness and the effectiveness of the register.

Kevan Jones: The effect of a more efficient method may be different in different areas. In my more rural static communities, the result of removing the annual canvass might not be a greater drop in accuracy than in my right hon. Friend’s Holborn and St Pancras constituency. The Liberal Democrats seem to vote through whatever this coalition Government want, but what would the Minister say if a future Government received an indication that registration dropped in constituencies held by their
	opponents? There would be no onus on the Government of the day or on Parliament to insist on the annual canvass being reinstated in a certain constituency.

David Heath: I repeat: this is a power for Parliament and I expect Parliament to use it sensibly because I believe—contrary to all the evidence—that most Members of Parliament want our democratic system to work as effectively as possible. Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right that there are differences between constituencies. The electorate in my constituency is almost the same as the electorate in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras, but demographically the two are very different and a comparison between them would be almost meaningless in those terms. The right mechanism in his constituency might be completely wrong for mine and there may be better and more effective measures we can deploy—as long as we are clear that our intention is to have in every constituency a register that is as complete and as accurate as we can manage.

Chris Ruane: rose —

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman was not here for the early part of our discussion of the amendments, but I happily give way to him.

Chris Ruane: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way so graciously. Earlier, he said, “We would not move forward unless we—no, not just we: the Electoral Commission and both Houses—were satisfied.” Let us imagine that on one side there was the Government and both Houses—one of them, this place, in an unholy alliance and the other stuffed with Liberal and Conservative peers—and on the other side the Electoral Commission saying, “No, things are not right.” Who would win?

David Heath: I do not remember any Government of any complexion introducing proposals on electoral law on which there was not a measure of agreement with the Electoral Commission, but the whole purpose of the Bill is to ensure that the first word—not the last word—lies with the Electoral Commission. The commission has the duty in the first instance to assess any proposal and to do so in the light of the evidence from pilot schemes run in the interim. It is inconceivable to me that a Minister would put forward a proposal using the mechanism in the Bill that did not have the full approval of the Electoral Commission. A future Government could decide to write their own primary legislation and abolish the canvass overnight—that is exactly what the Labour Government the hon. Gentleman supported did—but we do not intend to do that, because we think there is a better mechanism, based on evidence and on the views of the Electoral Commission, and that is what we have proposed.
	Let me go though the amendments in the group. Amendment 22 would remove the possibility of the Government proceeding with the abolition or the amendment of the annual canvass. We have no immediate intention of doing either, but I believe that that is a valuable power to be available to both Houses, provided there are safeguards and it is used on the advice of the Electoral Commission. It would be a great shame to be unable even to consider following the example set in Northern Ireland if that is the best way to achieve completeness and accuracy of the register.
	Amendment 24 deals with the mechanism within Parliament. As I said, the mechanism proposed is unique because of the requirement to have the advice of the Electoral Commission before starting. I hope that the House is satisfied that the two-stage process—a report by the Electoral Commission followed by the normal affirmative procedure in both Houses—provides sufficient scrutiny and safeguards.
	Amendment 23 would remove the ability to reinstate the canvass, which seems a little perverse, given the comments made by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras. I hope that the House will reject it.
	Under clause 6(5), an order to amend or abolish the annual canvass would include provision to create further secondary legislation. I think that makes sense. If amendment 25 were made, it would prevent subsequent orders, so everything would have to be in primary legislation. I do not believe we need to use such an unwieldy method and that regulation and subordinate legislation are better. On reflection, I suspect the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge will agree with me that that is not the most sensible way of setting about our business.
	Clause 7 sets out the requirement, when a proposal is made, for a report by the Electoral Commission containing an assessment of the extent to which registration officers are currently able to ascertain those unregistered people who are entitled to be registered and those who are registered but are not entitled to be so; the extent to which proposals in the order meet that objective; and the merits of alternative methods of meeting it. If amendment 27 were made, that report, instead of going to the relevant Minister, would go direct to Parliament. That does not necessarily make sense, because if such a proposal were to meet with a negative response from the Electoral Commission, it would not proceed to Parliament—Ministers would not entertain the suggestion. If the report were positive, however, it would be presented to Parliament and would necessarily form part of the process. In any case, I would expect the Electoral Commission to publish such a report, irrespective of whether it was to be presented to Ministers or to Parliament; the report would appear on the website and be available for general view and consideration. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.
	Amendment 28 would set arbitrary limits on the time the Electoral Commission had to produce a report. It is unnecessary to place such a restraint on the commission.
	Amendment 29 relates to the important matter of the commission’s role in relation to schemes to pilot proposed changes to the annual canvass. If we are to have a successful system, the pilots are extremely important. Without them, proper evaluation of schemes proposed by registration officers for their areas will be impossible. This covers the point raised by the hon. Member for North Durham about, in effect, horses for courses. The instigation comes from the registration officer for the area, it is agreed by the Minister, and Parliament must agree it by the affirmative resolution procedure. To insert yet another hurdle into the process is unnecessary because, in practice, the Electoral Commission would play a part in the design of any pilot scheme and would be responsible for evaluating it in due course. At the end of the day it is Ministers who are responsible to the House for schemes that are introduced.
	Lastly, on amendment 26, removing the requirement for such an order to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure or, indeed, any parliamentary procedure is a mistake, and I urge Members not to proceed with it.
	The amendments do not add to what is a very thorough evaluation process. I repeat that our sole intent is to have a complete and accurate register so far as that can be achieved. We should use every possible means to do that. It would be quite wrong to lose arbitrarily the usefulness of the annual canvass, but we should not seek to preserve that in perpetuity if there are better ways of doing the same thing more efficiently and more effectively. That is why the procedure with all its safeguards is in the Bill. I urge the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge to withdraw the amendments.

Angela Smith: In drawing the debate to a close, I begin by pointing out that amendment 22 deletes the proposal to give the Minister the power to abolish the annual canvass. Amendment 23 is consequential on amendment 22. That should be clear to everybody. It is therefore duplicitous of the Minister to suggest—

David Heath: I beg your pardon?

Angela Smith: I withdraw that remark. It is misleading of the Minister to suggest that amendment 23 takes away the power of Parliament—

Lee Scott: Order. Will the hon. Lady withdraw that comment, please?

Angela Smith: I withdraw the comment. It is unfair of the Minister to suggest that the Opposition are in any way trying to deny Parliament the power to reinstate an annual canvass, when in fact we are trying, through amendment 22, to ensure that the Minister is not given the power to abolish the annual canvass in the first place.

David Heath: Mr Scott, I should have welcomed you to the Chair. I apologise for not having done so.
	I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. We would have understood her amendments more clearly had she produced an explanatory memorandum. Amendment 23 does abolish the power to reinstate. I accept entirely her intention that it should be read along with amendment 22.

Angela Smith: There has been very little by way of explanation from the Minister in his response to the amendments that would give us any confidence in the potential alternatives to the annual canvass that have been repeatedly mentioned from the Government Benches. We have had references to alternatives that may be developed in the future, which may at some point in the future give the House the confidence to agree to a ministerial proposal to abolish the annual canvass. It would have helped the Committee in its deliberations if the Minister had outlined clearly what some of those alternatives might be.
	As I indicated in my initial comments on the amendments, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) suggested previously in oral evidence that modified
	versions of the annual canvass could be available in the future. It would have helped the Committee if we had had more detail from the Minister about what some of those alternatives might be. It is clear that Ministers are thinking through some of these proposals. Nothing in what we have heard today gives us the confidence to believe that the part of clause 6 that gives the Minister the right to abolish the annual canvass is anything other than a threat to the democratic process in this country.
	The Committee is being asked to agree something completely in the dark. In his response, the Minister indicated that in early 2014 there would be a full annual canvass, and I thank him for that. He also made it clear that it would be carried out in time for the European elections, which take place in June that year, as we understand it. The local elections in 2014 are likely to take place at the same time. He then indicated that the new individual registration process would commence shortly afterwards.
	May I take it that the Electoral Commission’s recommendation is that the commencement date for the new IR process should be 1 July 2014? We have had no response to that, but from what the Minister said, there is clearly a plan to go ahead with implementation of IR in the late summer of 2014. However, no information has been laid before the Committee today and no commitment has been given that the data-matching pilots which are part of the legislation will be completed and evaluated by the Electoral Commission before commencement of the new provisions.
	It is reckless to commit to a new system of electoral registration and to commit to commencement in 2014 when we have no certainty that the pilot schemes designed to test whether the new processes work will have been completed. It is the Opposition’s view that the new scheme for individual registration should be introduced only when the Electoral Commission is satisfied that it will guarantee a high level of completeness and accuracy. Nothing that we heard today gives us confidence that that will be the case.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) made good contributions in which they described in detail the complexity of people’s lives and the impact that an annual canvass may have in reducing levels of completeness precisely because of those complexities. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham referred in particular to the problem of registering students.
	Last week we had a debate about student registration. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) pointed out that there are 31,800 students living in his constituency alone. Without the annual canvass it is entirely possible, for all the reasons outlined in the debate, that registration in a constituency such as Sheffield Central could be substantially reduced. Given that the majority in Sheffield Central stands at only 165, it is obvious that before we make any radical changes to our electoral registration processes we should ensure that we have guarantees that any new system works properly, is based on sound evidence and is guaranteed and given the stamp of approval by the Electoral Commission.
	We have heard a lot today about how the new system will work, but we have not heard the detail. We have had superficial reassurances that it will work, but we have
	heard nothing of the detail. We have had no significant reassurance on whether new systems will eventually be so robust that we will be able to abolish an annual canvass.

Mark Harper: I wanted to check this information before I responded to the hon. Lady, but the assessment of the data-matching pilots to test the confirmation process by the Government and the Electoral Commission will be done by June 2013, well in time for us to have a clear picture before we commence the IER process.

Angela Smith: I thank the Minister for that, but can he confirm that all the data-matching pilots and necessary testing will be complete before the Government move ahead with the new scheme?

Mark Harper: The only one that we have to have tested before we move ahead is that to do with confirmation. The pilots that we will be doing, subject to the approval of Parliament, to see whether some of the data matching can help us to identify people not on the register concern things that we would want to know if we proposed to get rid of the canvass. As we do not propose to do that, we do not need to have that information before we move ahead with IER. We will know the results of the confirmation testing pilots by June 2013.

Angela Smith: The key point is that the new register, and the one used for the boundary review in 2015, will not be as complete as it should be, because those people carried over for the general election will not be carried over for December 2015. I therefore do not take a great deal of reassurance from that.
	We have had a lengthy debate. The Opposition will not seek to press the amendment to a vote. We believe that the House of Lords will engage in a lengthy and detailed debate on the issues that we have raised today, and on that basis we beg to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clauses 7 and 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9
	 — 
	Piloting registration provision

Matthew Offord: I beg to move amendment 32, page7,line29,at end add—
	‘(7) An order under this section may require registration officers to record at the point of registration—
	(a) a voter’s access needs in relation to any document which is required or authorised to be given to voters or displayed in any place for either registration or election, and
	(b) a voter’s access requirements to the polling station.’.
	This amendment would allow for pilots which could assist disabled people both to register to vote and to cast their vote. It would achieve this by allowing electoral registration officers to establish the level of demand for (a) documents in alternative formats and (b) additional accessibility mea
	s
	ures at polling stations. It is estimated that there are approximately 15,000 disabled potential voters per Parliamentary constituency.
	It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Scott.
	The issue of disability concerns many hon. Members and, as demonstrated by the Government in bringing forward the legislation, the issue of effectual electoral registration also concerns the majority of hon. Members. Therefore, the amendment seeks to address two concerns for Members. First, it seeks to introduce a better system of individual electoral registration, which identifies every person eligible to vote, and it seeks to identify the needs of disabled voters participating in the electoral process. The Bill introduces an opportunity to achieve that by seeking information at the time of registration.
	Recording disabled voters’ access needs at the point of registration can be used to improve the accessibility under the current system during the transition to IER and over the longer term. To put the issue in some context, it is worth establishing how many people it could affect. There are more than 10 million disabled people in the UK, with each parliamentary constituency containing approximately 15,000 disabled voters. That is almost a fifth of the total electoral roll. Polls Apart research has found that despite existing legislation aimed at improving the accessibility of election material, the experience of many disabled people has been that insufficient provision is made to provide information, forms and notices relating to the electoral process in alternative formats. Where this information is not available or is not sufficiently signposted, the election process can be considerably more difficult for these people to access.
	The Electoral Commission has responsibility for monitoring the extent to which the electoral registration officers comply with a series of performance standards. One such standard is focused on accessibility, more specifically on the extent to which EROs have taken into account the different needs of voters in their local community. The commission’s first analysis of EROs’ performance against the standards in 2009 highlighted a lack of consideration of the need to provide documents in alternative formats and raised concerns that attention by EROs had been focused primarily on the provision of documents in various languages. I am concerned at the evidence that the provision of accessible formats to voters has not had the same focus, as the lack of it excludes disabled people who require information in a format other than the standard print from the electoral process. The Electoral Commission’s subsequent assessment against the standard has revealed a worrying trend that EROs’ performance on accessibility has remained poorer than for any other standard.
	It can be said that we are currently placing the linguistic needs of people whose first language is not English above those for whom English is their first language but who, as a result of an accident or complication at birth, are being disfranchised from the electoral process. Consequently, individual registration has a potential to transform disabled people’s experiences of the electoral process if their access needs are recorded at the point of registration. The amendment seeks to achieve that by introducing a pilot project that can be rolled out on a national basis. The Government would need to ensure that such a pilot would be properly evaluated before any roll-out of the proposal goes nationwide. I am pleased to be able to inform the Minister that the Electoral Commission is prepared to carry out such an evaluation if the amendment is agreed.

Kevan Jones: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on tabling the amendment. How will electoral officers be able to identify the individuals? Will it be through the canvass, which is the main issue, or another method?

Matthew Offord: It will be through the canvass. I hope, as I continue with my speech, that it will become clearer to the hon. Gentleman and the Minister what I seek to achieve by tabling the amendment.
	The introduction of individual registration allows blind and disabled electors to specify at registration the format in which they wish to receive the information, including Braille, tape, large print, easy read, and so on. That would mean that a blind elector could specify when registering to vote that they would need to receive a polling card in a Braille or other format, or that they would require an audio postal vote application form. Allowing individuals to specify what format they need enables EROs to plan more effectively and meet the needs of a variety of disabled people who all encounter different barriers. Gathering data on voters’ preferred formats would enable EROs to send forms and information in that appropriate format and avoid having to make assumptions about voters’ needs. For instance, while Braille is used by some blind people, other formats may be just as important for blind and partially sighted people, including large print.
	The registration form could also capture requirements to enable physical access to the polling station or for the support that voters may need in casting a vote. Provided that such information is shared with a returning officer, it could be used to ensure that those needs are met in the run-up to polling day and on polling day itself. It should be obvious, for instance, which voters may need a large print ballot paper and how many copies need to be provided at one or other polling station.
	Recording information on access needs could not only be used to inform planning by electoral administrators, but is consistent with the Government’s goals in introducing individual registration to encourage individuals to take responsibility for registering themselves to vote. It should also be up to an individual to specify what alternative format they prefer. It is well known that the transition to IER is taking place in a climate of significant pressures on electoral budgets. Providing alternative formats involves some cost, but it is important to recognise that such a provision would not place any additional duties on EROs other than those they already have. Rather than increasing costs, such a measure would allow existing resources to be used more effectively.
	I have tabled the amendment to support the recommendation made by the Electoral Commission for a scheme to be piloted that would involve EROs asking for individual access needs of electors at the point of registration. Piloting that would provide valuable guidance to EROs on the most suitable system for maintaining registration forms and their associated access needs records, as well as allow the Government to assess the merits for such a provision to be rolled out.
	I hope that the Minister decides to accept the amendment, because I remain unaware of the validity of any claim that under the current legislation the Government already have sufficient powers to introduce the pilot—a view supported by the Electoral Commission and disability
	groups such as Scope, which have already impressed it on the Government. However, if it is asserted that that power already exists in other legislation, I can tell the Minister that the amendment would specifically ensure that the registration process itself is used to identify and meet access needs. No other legislation provides for the registration process to be used for that purpose. Given that, I believe the registration process to be the most effective mechanism for achieving both improvements for disabled people and benefits for electoral staff.

Robert Buckland: I commend my hon. Friend for tabling the amendment and wish that I had had time to sign it, because I am with him entirely—in spirit if not on the Order Paper. Is not the function of this probing amendment, as he says, to identify the need to husband our existing resources far more effectively, rather than taking a more scatter-gun approach that will not address the fundamental needs of disabled people?

Matthew Offord: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is entirely right. This will be an opportunity to define what people need so that we can ensure that EROs’ resources are used most effectively and that the electoral registration process is suitable for blind and partially sighted people.
	It may be asserted that such a provision already exists in the Bill, under the power to make regulations in clause 2. That will give the Secretary of State the power to prescribe the type of evidence that a person must provide to establish eligibility to register to vote. The Government could argue that that includes a power to ensure that access needs are recorded at registration, but I believe that the clause is limited to prescribing evidence that is needed to establish eligibility and, therefore, cannot be used to achieve the same purpose as my amendment.
	I believe that the Minister is a considerate man. If he chooses not to accept the amendment, will he please explain where he believes the power currently lies for the Government to carry out a pilot scheme in order to provide assurances about how information, forms and notices relating to the electoral process in alternative forms will be provided to blind and disabled people at future elections, and will he indicate when that will be achieved?

Kevan Jones: May I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Scott, and say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship for the first time? I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) on tabling the amendment. It has two aspects: first, it is clearly about people’s right to vote, and secondly, it rightly raises the issue of registration in the first place. It is often assumed that people who are disabled, partially sighted or who have no sight will fill out the registration forms when they receive them or have someone else do it for them, so what he proposes is very important.
	The key point, to return to the previous debate, relates to the annual canvass, because the only way of finding some of these individuals is to knock on doors and assess their needs. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the format of ballot papers and the information people receive on how to register. He said that there are potentially around 15,000 disabled people in each parliamentary
	constituency, so we are not talking about a small number of individuals. It has long been one of my gripes that in certain areas where I have acted either as an agent or a candidate, many returning officers have only recently taken note of accessibility to polling stations, let alone of the suggestion for making registration information and ballot papers more accessible.
	The reason for having a pilot is that it would show some new methods for achieving that and indicate whether they could be rolled out nationally. We also need to think a little out of the box on this. I know the Electoral Commission has done that before, but it has always shied away from postal voting and e-voting, for example, which for many partially sighted people would be better than going to a polling station. My mother is partially signed but does not read Braille, so the suggestion that she could vote by computer, for example, would be a good one for her.
	Such pilots would be worth doing. We had a pilot in Durham several years ago and, overall, texting, a full postal ballot and e-voting were very successful. The Electoral Commission’s report was very positive, but unfortunately, as I said in the previous debate, it got cold feet because of some of the headlines about electoral fraud. I think that allowing the possibility of electronic voting for disabled people would be a step forward and that what the hon. Gentleman proposes would be a way of trialling it in certain areas.
	It would be important to involve not only the major national charities so that they can talk about this, but the many local voluntary groups that support disabled individuals in the home. Care workers and local authorities could certainly play a role in this, and housing associations and others could identify where there might be large concentrations of people with physical or visual impairments, which would be very valuable. I wonder whether part of the pilot could put an onus on electoral registration officers to work with care homes, sheltered accommodation and local charities and support groups to be able to identify these people, first to ensure that they are registered in the first place—I am sure that many should be but are not—and secondly to explain the process to them.
	When canvassing, it never ceases to amaze me how many people I come across who clearly need a postal or proxy vote because of a physical disability but who do not have them, either because they do not understand how the process works or because they think that they would somehow have to struggle to the polling station and know that physically they could not get there. Therefore, the pilot could be not only for testing the different methods for providing information in the largest type and Braille or for e-voting and other things, as the hon. Gentleman said, but—the Minister should take this on board—for explaining to many disabled people the different ways in which they can vote, because from my experience I do not think that many understand postal voting or recognise that they can apply for it.
	I remember that under the old system someone had to tick a box and get a doctor or state-registered nurse to sign it, which was a bit of a palaver, but this would be a way of extending access to a group of people who, as the hon. Member for Hendon rightly identified, are perhaps not at the top of people’s priorities in the
	electoral process. They are—I think he would agree with this—a constituency that has a lot of issues that local councils, MPs and others need to take into account. The one way they can hold their elected officials, whether councillors or MPs, to account is through the ballot box, but if they cannot cast their vote or do not know how to do that, or if it is physically impossible for them to access that process, that constituency is hindered.
	I support the amendment. It would be a valuable thing to pilot the hon. Gentleman’s suggestions in areas so that lessons could be learned. It would be a useful process to have ongoing pilots because they would provide a body of evidence for electoral returning officers, not only showing new ways of doing things but, in some cases. making them mandatory to ensure that, as he said, people are asked about disability, because if they are not how will a returning officer or anyone else know what the individual’s needs are?
	The amendment would provide a very valuable lesson, and I hope that the Government do not push it aside, but look at it as part of the pilot process so that we obtain evidence that can then be rolled out, and so that some of those new methods, either for e-voting or for getting information to people on registration, become a normal part of electoral registration and, at elections, voting.

Angela Smith: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) on tabling a very important amendment, which we support for all the reasons that he and my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) have outlined.
	The measures are supported by Age UK, Mencap, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, Scope and Sense, and by the Electoral Commission, which importantly reminds us, however, that the Government would need to ensure that the pilots were properly evaluated before any wider roll-out of the proposal. The commission has also made it clear that it would be prepared to carry out such an evaluation.
	The Bill provides an opportunity to go as far as we possibly can in securing opportunities to improve significantly participation in the democratic process by disabled and older voters, and the amendment would do so in two parts. It outlines proposals for pilots on the format used in the initial registration process, and, on the need for a variety of formats when it comes to registering to vote, the obvious example is that of partially sighted and blind citizens.
	There are those beyond the partially sighted and the blind, however, who will not be able to sign registration forms or documents for one reason or another—perhaps because they have a physical disability that makes it hard for them to write or to use a pen. We have to remember also that, beyond the more severe and profound disabilities that unfortunately many citizens have to cope with, there are those who suffer from the more minor disabilities, such as dyslexia or dyscalculia, which mean that in many instances the completion of a form would be a major obstacle to claiming the right to register to vote.
	Many people suffering from, for instance, dyslexia find the use of IT incredibly helpful in overcoming their disability. It is surprising, but I saw it when I was the
	local authority cabinet member for education in Sheffield, where I was lucky enough to witness the introduction of interactive whiteboards in classrooms and the use of IT tablets for participation in classroom learning. It was incredible to see how helpful IT could be in overcoming something that to many of us seems a minor disability, but which to those who suffer from it can be a major obstacle to participation in the right to vote.
	Over and above that, I have also seen how individuals on the autistic spectrum benefit significantly from access to IT, and we in this House need to acknowledge that a wide range of formats could undoubtedly be adapted and used in the registration process.
	Polls Apart research has found that many disabled voters experience difficulty in receiving information, forms and notices relating to the electoral process in a format that they can access, so the evidence is not just anecdotal but on the record. The Electoral Commission has recognised its existence and would like Parliament to act on it.
	On polling stations, every Member will be more than aware of the problems experienced by a range of people with disabilities when claiming the right physically to register their vote on polling day, and I am sure that we, as politicians involved in election campaigns, have all taken voters to polling stations in our cars to exercise their right to vote. We know what it is like to see voters coping with crutches, wheelchairs and sometimes, because of infirmity due to age or disability, just the sheer effort of walking from the car to the polling station.
	The partially sighted and the blind, equally, are presented with problems when physically presenting themselves at the polling station in order to claim the right to vote.

Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that a surprising number of elderly people, in particular, who become housebound through age or disability do not know about their right to a postal vote? As part of the assessment proposed by the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord), should they not have that explained to them and be given help to apply for a postal vote?

Angela Smith: I completely agree. Back in 2004, south Yorkshire was selected as the pilot area for elections in which every vote was cast by post; we had an all-out postal ballot, as we called it. Not only did participation increase, but the process was particularly beneficial to those voters who, however accessible the polling station was, were never going to be physically able to get to it in the first place.
	It is an indictment of our democracy that so many disabled voters should have to rely on lifts from political parties to exercise their democratic right to vote. That is not healthy, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right when he makes the point that we should do whatever is necessary to encourage the disabled to access postal votes and proxy voting so that they secure their right to a say in who their elected representatives are.
	One disappointing feature of the Bill and an important part of the debate is that, when it comes to the carry-over provisions for the general election in 2015, postal votes will not be carried over to the register. That is worrying for democratic participation in the next general election, and more concerning is that its impact will probably be felt more deeply and profoundly by the disabled, the
	partially sighted and all the people whom we have been talking about. Labour Members have constantly made representations in this Committee about the removal of the entitlement to a postal vote for those citizens who are carried over to the register for the 2015 election.
	One of the major problems in our democracy is that many polling stations are not accessible to the physically disabled. The obvious thing to do is to use new-build public buildings, such as schools, as they would be totally accessible. However, schools are increasingly resistant to being used as polling stations, partly because it disrupts the school day. There are also concerns about security, given that strangers are allowed to wander on and off the school premises to exercise their right to vote.
	There is a major issue about accessibility to polling stations. I do not pretend that the amendment would deal with the whole problem, but it would at least place the onus on the Government. We are not talking about party politics, but something profoundly important—the onus on the Government to ensure that they do their utmost to deal with problems of physical access to polling stations.

Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that the number of polling stations is important as well? On accessibility, we should not go down the road taken by Newcastle city council when the Liberal Democrats were in charge—to save money, it reduced the number of polling stations. When I went back to my old ward to canvass during elections, I was amazed at how few polling stations there were and at the distances that certain people had to travel to cast their votes.

Angela Smith: Again, my hon. Friend makes a valuable point. I represent the city of Sheffield and the borough of Barnsley in Parliament. As anybody who knows south Yorkshire will be aware, it is probably one of the hilliest areas in the country; Sheffield is probably the hilliest city in Great Britain. As my hon. Friend is well aware, it is built on seven hills; there are constant arguments about who lives in the hilliest part.
	The key point is that the arguments about access to polling stations in the city are often entirely about how far away people are from their nearest polling station. The issue is not physical distance, but about whether people have to climb up a hill to exercise their right to vote. That is a major issue in my area. Indeed, in this year’s elections, the problem was so acute in one of the polling districts that the local authority agreed to have a new polling station in a funeral parlour, which raised a few eyebrows locally. The local authority was desperate to increase levels of participation and given the difficulties due to the hilliness of the district, it was felt that the funeral parlour was the best solution to enable people to participate in the democratic process.
	On the main point, there is a major issue of accessibility to polling stations in terms of distance and terrain. My hon. Friend is right: we need to maximise the number of polling stations in the first place, but we also need to think more carefully about how accessible those polling stations are.
	Finally, I want to make a few comments about e-voting. The House has an ambition to move eventually towards a system of e-registering for the right to vote. Online registration has to be the way forward in the long term.
	I take the point made about broadband and rural areas, but many broadband problems are not to do with rural areas but with where BT has made infrastructure investments. Some of the urban areas in my constituency do not have superfast broadband, whereas some of the rural areas do.
	Nevertheless, in the long term, e-registering is the way forward as we move towards the comprehensive electronic age. Equally, if we accept that e-registration is a legitimate way of encouraging the completeness of the electoral register, e-voting also has to be the way forward. My hon. Friend outlined some of the many ways in which we could introduce e-voting on a comprehensive scale. Whichever system people choose to use—voting online via the PC at work or voting by mobile phone or iPad—it must be right for us to begin properly to pilot access to e-voting. E-voting immediately improves accessibility to voting, particularly for disabled people. People with dyslexia and dyscalculia would also benefit from e-voting procedures.
	Pilot work has been done on e-voting. There are concerns about security, but I am sure that they can be overcome. We live in an age when people can transfer money from one bank account to another through a mobile phone—well, they can with certain banks. Pingit is an innovation. If the banking system feels that e-banking is secure, it is about time that we as a country recognised that e-voting offers a credible, secure way forward for improving accessibility for disabled people to the democratic process. We support the amendment and, like the hon. Member for Hendon, we hope that the Government accept it in the spirit intended.

David Heath: I genuinely welcome what the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) had to say about the amendment, for two reasons. First, he makes an extraordinarily important point about our electoral law and arrangements —that they should be inclusive. Secondly, on a personal note, he probably does not know, although some do, that in a former life I was an optician who had a lot to do with the visually impaired. I set up the all-party group on eye health and visual impairment because I thought the issue needed a higher profile. So the issue of accessibility is dear to my heart—certainly as far as the visually impaired are concerned, although of course it goes wider than that and other disabled groups are involved.
	Providing accessibility to the registration process is important, and the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) made points about the voting process as well—whether at a polling station or by other means. It is nice that everybody in the House wants progress on the issue. What we have put in train by virtue of the Bill will allow and provide for yet more work to be done to make sure that the register is as complete as possible, and that includes the needs of people with disabilities.
	The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) mentioned the importance of the canvass but added that other means must be available. I entirely agree. The suggestions on data matching in the Bill provide electoral registration officers with a wider palette of opportunities to consult the register of blind and partially sighted people
	—they can consult it now, although they do not necessarily do so. The evidence that local authorities have of people with disability or impairment will enable them to do a more complete job of ensuring inclusion.

Kevan Jones: I totally agree. Another source that local authorities could use is the blue badge scheme, which most administer.

David Heath: Precisely. As the hon. Gentleman will know, in the Bill there is a duty on electoral registration officers to use a variety of means with the sole duty of ensuring that the register is as complete and accurate as possible.
	I shall slightly disappoint the hon. Member for Hendon by saying, as he anticipated, that I do not believe that the amendment is necessary, because the Bill already provides for what he wants. Clause 9 allows for the new registration system to be piloted in advance of commencement, and there is no reason why it should not include the information that is collected from application forms. The clause enables electoral registration officers to propose pilot schemes in their areas to test how the new system will work in practice. We expect that to test the robustness of the individual electoral registration digital service in advance of nationwide implementation. There is no obstacle to a proposal’s using the power in the Bill in order to include the collection of a voter’s accessibility needs. That would be a very good use of that power.

Kevan Jones: I accept that these powers are in the Bill, but I think that what the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) is trying to get at is that this should not necessarily be left to local EROs. Yes, they might take it into account, but in order to get the body of evidence, it would be helpful if the Government said to particular areas, “Could you pilot this proposal on disabled people?”, so that lessons could be learned from the pilots. If it is just left to EROs, some of the better ones might do it, but we might not get the data or learn the lessons that are needed.

David Heath: This involves two things. First, we need to have pilots to see how we can most effectively secure the information; the Electoral Commission might want to take a view on that. Secondly, we need to ensure that that is reflected in the secondary legislation—the regulations that specify what needs to be collected. There is already quite a long list of things that are specified; indeed, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) has complained that it is too long. Despite his reservations, I think that accessibility issues would be a useful addition. Provisions elsewhere in the Bill provide specific powers to add other requirements. For example, new paragraph 3ZA(1)(a) to the Representation of the People Act 1983 provides the power that the hon. Member for Hendon is concerned about. It seems that his view is shared by the Electoral Commission, which slightly worries me, but I will come back to that.

Chris Ruane: If a local authority offered to pilot such an initiative, would it receive additional funding?

David Heath: We want to make sure that every authority has the funding it needs to do the job properly. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a duty on local authorities
	to make available to electoral registration officers the funding that is necessary for them to do their job. He also knows that some authorities do that very well but some, frankly, do not, and in those cases the ERO ought to be saying, “You, Mr Chief Executive”—or Mr County Treasurer, or whatever—“are not providing the resources necessary to do the job effectively.” We will support every time EROs who lack the resources to do the job properly.

Chris Ruane: rose —

David Heath: I will give way once more to the hon. Gentleman.

Chris Ruane: If such a pilot is of national significance because it could influence national policy, and it is above and beyond what an ERO or a local authority is already doing, surely it is incumbent on the Government, in a time of cuts, to recognise that and make additional funding available to it.

David Heath: I repeat that every electoral registration officer has a duty—a very important duty—to make sure that the register in their area is as complete and as accurate as possible. That is their duty, irrespective of this Bill.

Matthew Offord: I am gratified by some of the Minister’s comments, if not all. I hope that I made it clear that I do not believe that the amendment would be an additional financial burden on EROs. I said that although providing alternative formats would introduce some costs, it is important to recognise that no additional duties would be placed on EROs. It would be more cost-effective in terms of the money that they spend in relation to registration rather than costing local authorities more. I would very much hope that local authorities would be willing to take out a pilot scheme.

David Heath: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. We have previously provided additional resources for pilot schemes where that is justified. However, as he says, his suggestion would simply encourage EROs to do their job more effectively using the information that they ought to have available, and that is why it commends itself to me.
	On the whole, the Bill is good news for people with disabilities, because it deals with a number of issues that some of us have argued for some time ought to be dealt with. For instance—this is not the subject of the amendment, Mr Scott, but I hope that you will forgive me for responding to a point raised by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge—we have provided additional time within the timetable, exactly as Scope and others argued, to enable access issues to be better incorporated. The hon. Lady rightly mentioned issues to do with polling places. It would be wrong to go into detail on that in the context of this part of the Bill, because it is the subject of a clause in part 2. However, making sure that the polling places review is more closely aligned with UK parliamentary elections, thereby allowing it to examine the accessibility of proposed locations, ought to ensure that we do a better job than we do at the moment. I agree that in some areas access to polling stations is not desperately good and ought to be better. That is not confined to rural areas rather than
	urban areas or urban areas rather than rural areas; it is often partly about what is available and partly about the ingenuity and resolution of the ERO in doing the best job within the confines of the resources. There is a lot more that can be done.
	The hon. Member for Hendon will recognise, I hope, that we are not only fully seized of the issue he raises but determined that we can and should do better for people with disabilities. We need to work closely with organisations that represent those people to make sure that the draft secondary legislation that the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), has published—it is a good job he has done so—takes these issues into account as comprehensively as possible. I am prepared to give a clear commitment that the Government are more than happy to consult those organisations further—with the Electoral Commission and with anybody else, including the hon. Member for Hendon himself if he so wishes—to make sure that we have done that and that when the final regulations are approved by this House they meet the requirements that he has put forward.
	It is right that we take whatever steps we reasonably can not only to ensure that our arrangements are as inclusive as possible, but to bring in innovation where possible. The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge is right that some aspects of modern technology are hugely beneficial to people with disabilities. We will test that as part of the registration process, as she knows. I think that that is another huge advance. Those are things that we ought to do, if we can.
	Finally, I say to the hon. Member for Hendon that we do not think that there is a difficulty with the powers in the Bill in giving electoral registration officers and the Electoral Commission the opportunity to do this work. If there is any difficulty, I undertake to look at the powers again to ensure that there is no gap. We are certainly prepared to introduce something else if necessary, but on my reading of the powers it is not. On that basis, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment so that we can discuss the matter again before the Bill reaches its conclusion.

Matthew Offord: I am grateful for Members’ contributions and want to make a few comments about them.
	The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) mentioned annual registration of the right to vote. We currently have that. As I am sure he is aware, the Polls Apart survey at the last general election showed that 67% of polling stations presented one or more access barriers to disabled people that might have prevented them from voting and that 47% of postal voters experienced at least one access problem. Even with the current system of annual registration, we are experiencing problems. Any change to that system will not increase the access of disabled and partially sighted people.
	The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) represents an area of the world that I know well, as I stood in Barnsley East and Mexborough many years ago and tramped up and down the hills of Sheffield, Hallam as we attempted to win that seat, unsuccessfully, in 2001. She made a good point in asking what disability is. One person’s disability is not another person’s. She mentioned dyslexia, which on
	face value I would not consider to be a disability. However, if I suffered from it, I would probably view it differently. I can think of at least four Members of this House who have a visible disability and each one of them has very different needs. I will not name names, but I am sure that Members can imagine that people who are partially sighted have different access needs from those who are in a wheelchair.
	I met a physical disability group called Disability Action in the Borough of Barnet, which is located in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer). One of the issues it raised is the siting of polling stations. One polling station in my constituency is located in a portakabin in a pub car park. There have been occasions when disabled people have been required to vote outside the polling station because they were not able to access the ballot box directly. That is incredible in this day and age. I had hoped that my amendment would address such issues.
	I was gratified by the Minister’s response, particularly on the register of visual impairment. Along with the intervention of the hon. Member for North Durham about blue badges, that reminded me that there are opportunities for electoral registration officers to identify people who may need assistance. I believe that we need political will in our local authorities to ensure that those opportunities are taken. I hope that the Bill goes some way towards achieving that.
	I believe that the Minister has more than left the door open. I will be watching the passage of the Bill and will be pleased if any concessions can be achieved elsewhere. He used the word “assurance” and I hope to hold him to account on that. I would like to be part of any process to take the proposal forward. On that basis, I say categorically that he has assured me at this stage. I will seek leave to withdraw the amendment, with the provision that he maintains his gaze on this matter. I assure him that I will. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Angela Smith: Clause 9 allows for flexibility and contingency in the way that individual registration is implemented and it allows for the Government to test changes to our system before rolling out individual registration nationwide. However, we have had no concrete details so far on how the changes will be phased in. As I indicated in the debate on clause 6 and the related amendments, many questions about implementation remain outstanding. That is why the Opposition want to take this opportunity to place on the record our agreement with the Electoral Commission, which has made it clear today that it is essential that the Government publish a detailed implementation plan as soon as possible to show what needs to be done to deliver the changes outlined in the Bill.
	Last week, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) said that he was confident that there would be no backlog in voter registration because the IT system to be used for data-matching purposes would be properly tested before widespread implementation.

Chris Ruane: We have had promises from IT companies before that everything will be all right, but the systems have failed at the first hurdle after we have spent billions of pounds on them. We have a political deadline to meet, because the Conservatives want to win the next general election on the back of the Bill. Does my hon. Friend agree that that must not stand in the way, and that the IT system must be in place properly before we move forward?

Angela Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point, especially given that the new register will be used for the boundary review in December 2015. It is critical that the data-matching arrangements work. He is right that the IT systems procured by Governments for public sector services often prove to be lacking, inefficient and not fit for purpose. The outcome of such problems is usually a backlog, causing frustration and anger for people up and down the country who do not get the services to which they are entitled.
	That is not a problem just with central Government. When I was in local government, we introduced a new IT system to process housing benefit. It was introduced by the former chief executive of the council, who is now the top civil servant in the country and is very competent indeed. Even so, it was impossible to get an IT system that worked in the right way from day one. Sheffield city council ended up with one of the most severe backlogs that I have ever seen in processing the benefits that were due to the people of the city.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) is right that it is crucial to the democratic process that any IT system is tested thoroughly before people use it to register their right to vote. It is crucial that the right to register is given priority over anything else. If the IT system is found wanting, the partial register that results should not be used for the boundary review in 2015.
	If the House is to have confidence in the Minister’s verbal reassurances, it must have the detail on how the changes are to be introduced. We must have concrete evidence in an implementation plan that every process that is required for the new system, including the data-matching and confirmation processes, will be up and running efficiently and properly before we move on to using the new system. Given that the boundaries in the 2020 general election depend on our getting this right, the House is entitled to a proper response from the Minister and to reassurance that the details will be made available soon.

David Heath: This is an area in which the official Opposition are probably world experts: IT systems that go wrong. The Government are grateful for their experience, which was garnered through many years, of the criminal justice IT system that never worked, and the NHS system that never even got off the starting blocks, despite millions of pounds being spent. We know from their example just how poor IT systems can be when they fail to function.
	However, to take us into IT systems that go wrong on the basis of clause 9, which introduces the opportunity to trial and pilot to ensure that things are robust before they go live, is odd. It is important that we ensure that we pilot registration provisions; that the verification system is sufficiently robust before we roll out individual
	electoral registration; and that we test the IER digital service before it goes live in 2014 so that it can cope with the transition. That is exactly the reason for clause 9.
	The clause enables the draft orders for the pilots to be introduced for the consideration of the House to ensure that it is satisfied, and so that we can properly evaluate the outcome once the pilots are concluded. Incidentally, the orders can be brought forward only at the proposal of the registration officer responsible for the area. We have learned many lessons from the data-matching pilots carried out last year. They were used to make improvements to the system and to simplify the proposals for the transition process before the Committee. The proposed pilots could have the same impact as the data-matching pilots.
	Understanding how such things work and what can go wrong is crucial to any change of such magnitude. Clause 9 is therefore important because it provides the legislative framework that will enable pilots to take place. They will ensure that the system has the confidence not only of those who operate it, but of those who use it. They need confidence that the system is robust and that it has been pressure tested. That is the reason for the proposals.
	The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) made an important point on setting out an implementation plan. The Government are still consulting and working closely with the Electoral Commission and taking the advice of the political parties. When we have concluded that process, we will set out an implementation plan for all to see, but that is not the purpose of the measure. The clause will ensure that we properly test and evaluate the proposed system to ensure it works, which has not happened so often in the past. Only when it works satisfactorily and has been seen to do so can we make progress.
	I hope that that answers the hon. Lady’s points to the satisfaction of the Committee.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5
	 — 
	Invitations to register

Angela Smith: I beg to move amendment 12, page 4, line 32, at end insert—
	‘(1A) A local authority must include a statement about the importance of electoral registration in its annual communication with residents relating to the payment of council tax.’.

Lee Scott: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 13, page4,line32,at end insert—
	‘(1B) There will be a duty on local authorities to ensure that individuals are invited to register when those individuals move into the area of the local authority and register for council tax purposes.’.
	Amendment 16, page5,line15,at end insert—
	‘(9) Regulations under subsection (2) must require registration officers to include on electoral registration forms a clear explanation that the electoral register is used for other civic purposes.
	(10) There should also be a clear explanation that the electoral register is used for assessing an individual’s credit worthiness and ability to sustain mortgage repayments.’.
	Amendment 34, page5,line15,at end insert—
	‘(9) Regulations under subsection (2) must require registration officers to include on invitations given under subsection (1)—
	(a) a clear statement to the effect that the edited electoral register is available for general sale and is used by organisations for commercial activities, as well as for other civic purposes; and
	(b) clear instructions on how to opt out of the edited electoral register.’.
	The amendment is intended to ensure that it is clear to people who are invited to apply for registration that the edited register may be sold, and to ensure that people know how to opt out of the edited register.
	Amendment 17, page5,line16,at end add—
	‘(3) Government departments with responsibility for welfare payments, pensions, driving licences, revenue collection, National Insurance and passport applications must inform all individuals who apply for these benefits or services of their possible entitlement to join the electoral register.’.

Angela Smith: This debate focuses on the arrangements established by clause 5. Clause 5 lays out in principle the arrangements for issuing invitations to register to unregistered persons known to electoral registration officers, via either an annual canvass or any other means. It is important that arrangements are made for the pursuit of such individuals, and the Opposition are pleased that the clause now includes provisions for a civil penalty—there was initially no suggestion of a civil penalty for failing to register to vote. The Government considered opt-outs from the duty to register, but we are pleased that they have changed their view and acknowledge that they have listened.
	We have said that the annual canvass should remain as the cornerstone of this country’s approach to electoral registration, but we do not oppose the clause. It gives the green light to the establishment of regulations for hard-to-reach individuals, or for individuals who need to register outside an annual canvass because, for example, they are moving from one borough to another.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) mentioned some of the pressures experienced by people when they move property. They might be starting a new job as well as moving home, or their children might be starting at a new school. They will need to register with doctors and dentists, and with new telephone companies and energy suppliers. It is said that the stress of moving house is second only to the stress of changing job or losing a family member—it certainly ranks highly in that respect—and many people move home each day. The likelihood is that they will not have registering to vote at their new address high on their list of priorities. Hon. Members probably rate registration as a high priority when they move property, but that is because we are politicians—we do not reflect the general population.
	I know from my experience of canvassing door to door in election campaigns that people often fail to register their vote. One can knock on someone’s door and establish that they would indeed support one’s political party, but then find that they are not the people registered as living at the address. Inevitably, they have moved from elsewhere, and then of course one must go through the rigmarole of advising them that if they want to register their right to vote, they must do so at their old address.
	The Opposition feel that that situation can be improved. In many instances, people move but do not immediately want to re-register their right to vote. I was one such individual when I first moved to Sheffield way back in 1994. I stayed with family at that time, because I was busy trying to get my foot in the door and find work. I did not buy my first home in Sheffield until six or seven months after moving, which meant I was not on the electoral register for the city for a significant period. I was a member of a political party, but registering the right to vote was not my highest priority at that time—getting a wage and somewhere to live were far more important.
	The system can be improved. The Opposition believe that every possible means must be used to encourage the completeness of the electoral register. To that extent, we believe that the regulations sanctioned by clause 5 should be supplemented with various new obligations which, taken together, will help to maximise opportunities for a higher level of completeness of the electoral register.
	Amendment 12 would make it compulsory for councils to include a statement about the importance of registration in council tax demands. Council tax demands are the one occasion every year when a local authority communicates with most residents. The detail of the communication is not always welcomed by those who receive it—not many welcome the council tax demand that pops through the letter box every April. Most people look at the final figure and at the monthly payments, and make a derogatory statement about the quality of the services provided and the money they pay annually. Interestingly, when people are asked what they get for their council tax, many say, “All I get is my bins emptied.” I suspect that many Members have heard that time and again. On one level, that proves that when people get the council tax communication they do not read the details about how the income raised is spent.
	Were the amendment accepted as a potentially valuable addition to making the register more complete, I would recommend that the statement about council tax payers’ right to register in a borough be placed in a prominent part of the communication and in bold print. That would make it clear to people that they have overlooked this matter and should register their right in order to have a say over how the income they hand over to the council is spent. It would involve no extra cost to local authorities, because the communication goes out every year anyway, and would have the advantage of reminding voters of the relationship between their choice of elected representatives and the spending priorities and choices of those representatives. At the very least, then, the amendment would strengthen the relationship between voters and their local authorities. If used effectively in council tax communications, it could also help to improve levels of voter registration.
	Amendment 13 would give councils a duty to invite people to register when it contacts them mid-year to set up council tax payments, when an individual or individuals move into a new residence. From our experience of election campaigning, we all know that in real life there is always a degree of churn in electoral registration, because people have a habit of moving properties. Even in the most stable and enduring of communities, however, where there is little movement—my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham said that his area was particularly stable, and so is mine—people move. They move for work, family and social reasons; because they
	want to downsize or upsize; or to be in a particular school catchment area. People move for all sorts of reasons.
	It is important to ensure, therefore, that under regulations arising from clause 5 electoral registration officers bear a responsibility for chasing these changes and, in so doing, play an important part in ensuring the greater accuracy and completeness of the electoral register. Furthermore, as with amendment 12, the coupling of the invitation to register with a council tax communication will help to remind citizens of the relationship between the right to vote and the decisions of elected representatives. It is important constantly to bear in mind the relationship between the right to vote and have a say, and the payment of tax. It goes to the heart of our democracy.
	It is also important to remember that a duty to chase the registration of people who have moved property will enable electoral registration officers to ensure that a citizen’s registration is not duplicated in more than one local authority area, in cases where the individual has simply moved from one house to another. It should be easy for the Government to accept amendment 13, because it is not controversial, would involve no extra cost and would be a valuable addition to the armoury of the registration process.
	Amendment 16 would require electoral registration officers to include on all registration forms key information designed to raise awareness of the importance of registration. This refers to the link between the register and the availability of mortgage and credit facilities, as well as jury service. The latter reflects the earlier point made during our debate on clause 6. Voter registration is not only a right but a duty, and jury service is one of the key duties of any citizen. It underpins our commitment to democracy and the rule of law, and our commitment to justice and the right of individuals to be tried by their peers.
	Most Members, if not all, will know how much access to credit and mortgage facilities relates to the applicant’s ability to verify their identity. We all know about the difficulties arising if an applicant for a mortgage or loan cannot prove where they live. It makes things very difficult. There is also the business of having to produce the last three months’ utility bills and wage slips, and all the rest of it. Most of us will experience that at some point because, when one has moved house but not long lived in the new property, finance houses demand such extra information before providing access to a loan. It is a good thing in our society that financiers—the banks and building societies—run those rigorous identity checks before making available access to finance.
	Callcredit, the UK’s second largest consumer credit reference agency, has pointed out that if the register is depleted, credit reference agencies’ ability to provide services to companies, local authorities and Government Departments in order to guard against fraud and identity theft will be significantly hampered. It is important to emphasise this point. One of my first pieces of casework as an MP involved a fraud case and the theft of the identity of someone who sadly had passed away. Their identity was stolen via utility bills from their property. Access to finance was almost secured, but was stopped at the very last minute following checks run by the postal service on delivery of the loan agreement. It is important to ensure, therefore, that the register is as complete as possible in order to minimise fraud and allow people access to finance.
	The amendment will not place a burden on local authorities or electoral registration officers. It is already the practice of some local authorities to refer to the importance of registration in securing credit and mortgage facilities.

Mark Williams: I welcome the tone of the hon. Lady’s remarks. She has talked about good practice by referencing credit agencies. How would she ensure that that good practice is disseminated across the country?

Angela Smith: I would ensure it through the amendment. Local authorities should be under an obligation to draw local residents’ attention to the fact that access to finance and mortgages might depend on whether they are on the electoral register. Some local authorities already do that. Southwark council makes it clear on its website, on the page referring to the annual canvass under the heading, “What do I need to do?”, that
	“If you are not on the register you may find it difficult obtaining credit for a loan or mortgage”.
	That is a simple, straightforward sentence making it clear that if someone does not register to vote as a resident of the borough, they might be denied access to finance.
	To show that I am not being partial, I shall mention a Conservative borough. Basingstoke and Deane council makes it clear on its website that access to finance will depend on registering to vote. Not every local authority does that, but it is a straightforward, lost-cost option. Local authorities would simply have to make it clear when they send out the forms for the annual canvass that registering is important not just for the right to vote but for accessing finance. That can also be put on local authority websites. As far as we are concerned, there is no excuse for local authorities not making that point clear to its residents. It is a simple reference on a form or on a website page; it is a simple request, and I am sure that the Government will want to accede to it. That applies to all our amendments in the group, as not one of them involves extra cost or any significant extra burden on the work of local authorities or electoral registration officers.
	Amendment 17 is designed to extend the opportunities for getting through to those hard-to-reach individuals for individual registration purposes. The Electoral Reform Society strongly believes that when Government Departments such as the Inland Revenue and those responsible for welfare payments, pension payments, driving licences, national insurance and passport applications have contact with the people who apply for those things, it would be very useful if those agencies were required to make a registration form available. That is particularly relevant to 17 and 18-year-olds who apply for their first driving licence, for instance. It is typically the younger generations who do not think that seriously about registering to vote. They have far more interesting things on their minds for the most part. As things stand, the responsibility for their registration lies with their parents or the head of the household.
	There is a real risk under the new system that those young people will not get themselves registered. We know from the low level of participation of young people in elections that there is a high risk of that happening. It is therefore entirely sensible for Departments and public
	sector agencies such as the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the Passport Service to have a duty or responsibility to make young people, or anybody applying for a driving licence or a passport, aware of the importance of electoral registration.

Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Lady make it clear that it would be equally inappropriate for these agencies to register people when they are not British?

Angela Smith: Of course, but the system we have now and the one we want to put in place would provide safeguards on that score. Anyone applying for a passport has to prove nationality before being granted one. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but there should be sufficient safeguards in any registration system to ensure that only British nationals with the right to vote are allowed to go on to the electoral register. Indeed, that lies behind many of the issues that we are discussing today.
	Many other legislatures across the world use such a method of ensuring that the registration of eligible citizens is maximised—the United States, for example. Once again, Opposition Members can see no reason why the Government would want to resist amendment 17 in any way, as it is perfectly sensible. It is a practical, common-sense way of extending awareness of registration and of the duties and responsibilities that go with being an adult citizen in Great Britain. It provides a perfectly sensible and practical way forward for maximising awareness of those rights and responsibilities. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response, particularly to hearing that they are ready to accept all our amendments in the group.

Mark Williams: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith). Her amendments specify the steps that local authorities should pursue to register more people. Amendment 16 specifically reminds applicants of their civic duties. This raises the key issue of what information should be included in the communication, and she listed some reasonable mechanisms and steps that should be taken. I guess the substance of the debate will be whether these provisions need to be written directly into the Bill or whether, as clause 5 specifies, they can be made by regulation. That will be the focus of my brief contribution.
	I believe it is good that clause 5 allows the Electoral Commission to standardise forms, which is my reading of that particular clause and it applies to some of the issues the hon. Lady mentioned. We heard on Second Reading, as we usually do, from the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), who talked about the excellent experience in the county of Denbighshire. He mentioned the good work that had been undertaken there and the documents that had been created, which led to impressive rates of registration.
	I would like to hear more from the Government about the onus they intend to place on the Electoral Commission—in preference to writing provisions directly into the Bill—in respect of the substance of those forms and the prominence in them of various messages, not least the civic duty and the penalty. The Bill as it stands says that the Electoral Commission should provide that information, but will the Minister ensure that it must provide it? We need additional clarity about the penalty
	and the implications if the application is not complied with. Will he confirm whether the Electoral Commission will be mandated to put information about the civil penalty on the forms? If we are to have good practice, will the usability of those forms be tested? Critically, if we are to rely on regulation rather than place these matters directly on the face of the Bill, when will those regulations be laid out? Critically, too, what detail will they specify? In short, what is the Electoral Commission’s role in these matters; what is its role in disseminating good practice; and what is its role in insisting on that good practice? The hon. Lady cited some good examples of good practice undertaken by local authorities from both political parties—I wish she had said from all political parties—but the reality is that that is not universal. I am interested—I suspect the hon. Lady and the Minister are, too—in ensuring that best practice is pursued.

Kevan Jones: I agree with hon. Gentleman, who makes a good point. I recall that Derwentside district council used to be responsible for registration in the Derwentside part of my constituency. It was clear from looking at the register that there were gaps of entire streets or parts of streets. That showed me that not a great deal of attention was being paid by the registration officer to information that could be seen just by flicking through the register.

Mark Williams: I concur with the hon. Gentleman. I think we have nothing to be scared about in the Government’s legislation or in respect of the good practice that some local authorities are exhibiting. I am concerned that we spread good practice, and I believe clause 5 provides us with the mechanism to do that by requiring returning officers in the first instance to send the invitations to register and then by providing a secondary power to make regulations about the substance of the initial applications. Further to that, the regulations
	“may confer functions on the Electoral Commission”.
	I hope that the Minister can flesh out the role he believes the Electoral Commission should play in these matters.

Graham Allen: It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Weir.
	Before I deal with this important clause and set of amendments, let me say a few words about the role of those who have served on my Select Committee, the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. I believe that it did an exemplary job in examining not just clause 5 but all the other clauses, and I fear that had it not done so, and had the Government not engaged with it as they did, this Committee stage would have been much more fraught. It is because the Select Committee managed to clear away a lot of the undergrowth—a lot of the detail—during its close discussions with the Government that the real, strong political issues that should be debated on the Floor of the House are being so debated. Not only the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner), who is present, but other members of the Select Committee have participated in the first two days of this Committee stage, and will probably participate in the third.
	I was surprised to see how many amendments the Government had accepted. I had thought that we had done a reasonable job, but that co-operation has taken the Select Committee to a better place in the way in which we should, responsibly, seek to amend Bills. There can be nothing more important than what we have tried to do in respect of the right to vote, the registration of the vote, and the invitation to vote. It may sound very dry and technical, but the truth is that those issues are fundamental to our democracy. If we get this wrong, all the high-falutin’ phraseology about our freedoms and liberties, and our right to create our own Governments and dispose of them, will be rendered useless.
	We need only read the history books, such as those that deal with the Jim Crow laws in the United States, to know that, even when there is a nominal right to vote, if registration is not got right—if, indeed, it is deliberately twisted so that it is difficult for people to vote—everyone is denied their right to democracy. As Lyndon Johnson is quoted as saying in a famous book by Robert Caro, which I would recommend to anyone, if people are given the right to vote they are given access to the whole panoply of the power of Government, and can then exercise their ability to change law by whatever means they wish to employ: through their political parties, and through other organisations. We have seen how vital it is for registration to be exercised in a responsible and comprehensive way in countries such as South Africa, which, in recent years, has done a tremendous job in fulfilling that requirement.
	However, we also need to look a little closer to home. When we talk about registration, I always think of the old Shire hall in the middle of my city of Nottingham. Three blocks can be pulled out of the steps of the hall, and that is where the old tripod gallows used to be. It was used at the time of the Pentrich rebellion, only six generations ago, to execute people who were demanding the right to vote—demanding the right, in our own country, to exercise the mandate that would decide who should be the Government.
	I go to those stratospheric lengths only to demonstrate that we are debating an extremely serious matter. We are not merely discussing the dry technicalities that electoral registration officers, who are almost always extremely capable and conscientious public servants, put into law and into our democratic process. We are discussing a fundamental issue.
	As well as engaging with Government and producing a great many changes and evolutions in the original proposals, my Committee decided to table a couple of probing amendments that would keep the Government on their mettle, but would not be pressed to a vote. I hope that the Minister will approach our amendments in that spirit. The first is amendment 34, to which is appended an explanatory statement enabling any Member who should wander innocently into the Chamber and wonder what we are doing to understand exactly what the debate is about. The amendment does what it says on the tin. As the explanatory statement says:
	“The amendment is intended to ensure that it is clear to people who are invited to apply for registration that the edited register may be sold, and to ensure that people know how to opt out of the edited register.”
	That is crystal clear. I hope that we do not all suffer the wrath of the Chair of the Procedure Committee, but
	take his edict seriously, and begin to attach explanatory statements to all our amendments so that everyone can understand the business a little more readily.
	The edited register is available for general sale, and is used by organisations for the purpose of commercial activities such as marketing, as well as for campaigning purposes by all of us here who are members of political parties. It is also used for purposes such as the tracing of missing persons. I am sure that Members who are in the Chamber have received a number of representations from certain bodies about that. Electors who do not want their details to appear on the edited electoral register need to opt out.
	When my Committee conducted its pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, it recommended the abolition of the edited electoral register. We did not feel that it was appropriate for personal details gathered by the Government for electoral purposes to be sold to commercial organisations. Sadly, on this occasion the Government did not accept our recommendation, and that is why I am pressing the Minister tonight. I want to understand this thinking and to establish whether he wishes to think about the issue further, either now or at a later stage. The Government did, however, say in their response that they were
	“aware of and considering the finely balanced arguments on the future of the edited electoral register.”
	My Committee feels that while the edited version of the register continues, it is important for people who are being invited to register to realise that it may be sold—I am sure that many do not know that—and that it could be used for commercial purposes. It is also important for them to know exactly how they can opt out of the edited register.
	I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to respond to the points that I have made, and to tell us whether he has had any further thoughts of the sort that he outlined in his initial response to my Committee.

Kevan Jones: May I also say, Mr Weir, what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship?
	I want to record my thanks to the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) and his Committee for the work they have done. They have improved the Bill substantially, which demonstrates the power of Select Committees when it comes to pre-legislative scrutiny. I think that we should see more of that, because it would not only give Bills a smoother passage in this place, but allow external agencies to ensure that their voices were heard. I also think that the Minister should be commended for the spirit in which he has accepted the Committee’s report.
	Clause 5 deals with the maintenance of the register, a topic we touched on earlier in the context of ensuring it is as accurate and up to date as possible. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North said, this goes to the heart of our democracy. People must have the democratic right to be on the register. My hon. Friend referred to Lyndon Johnson, and I, too, have just finished reading the latest version of Robert Caro’s fourth book on Johnson, which I recommend as essential reading to all Members. It is important to ensure that citizens have the right to vote for their local representative, whether at parish, district or county council level or in parliamentary or European elections.
	Clause 5 covers regulations governing electoral registration officers. It is important to give clear steers, either in the Bill—as suggested by my Front-Bench colleagues —or in regulations. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) said, there are onuses on EROs to do certain things, but there must be consistency in this regard, as well as the will to do those things. The Bill states:
	“A registration officer in Great Britain must give a person an invitation to apply for registration in a register maintained by the officer if—
	(a) the officer is aware of the person’s name and address,
	(b) the person is not registered in the register, and
	(c) the officer has reason to believe that the person may be entitled to be registered in the register.”
	Under current legislation, there are certain onuses on EROs. The Representation of the People Act 1983 was amended by the Electoral Administration Act 2006, which added a new section, 9A, setting out the steps that must be taken by EROs to identify people eligible for registration as electors. The steps include:
	“(a) sending more than once to any address the form to be used for the canvass under section 10 below;
	(b) making on one or more occasions house to house inquiries under subsection (5) of that section;
	(c) making contact by such other means as the registration officer thinks appropriate with persons who do not have an entry in a register;
	(d) inspecting any records held by any person which he is permitted to inspect under or by virtue of any enactment or rule of law;
	(e) providing training to persons under his direction or control in connection with the carrying out of the duty.”
	It may be claimed that many of those steps are already in place, but I come back to a point made earlier: the key is how they are implemented by local EROs.

Chris Ruane: Although some of these steps have been in place since as far back as 2006, many have not been taken up. This Bill presents us with an opportunity to make sure EROs take up their past duties, obligations and laws as well as their future ones.

Kevan Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He has done a lot of good work in highlighting low registration across constituencies in the UK, and what he says is right, as I know from my own experience in County Durham. We could see obvious mistakes on the register, such as large gaps in streets—numbers 12 to 15 might be entirely missing, for example. A member of the council staff should have said, “Wait a minute; it can’t just be a matter of chance that all the residents in that sequence of addresses haven’t registered. A mistake must have been made.” Another example involved a sheltered accommodation property. It was run by a local councillor, but it was not included on the register at all. The new county council has made a determined effort to address such mistakes through a canvass, and we added about 12,000 people to the electoral register. That was a result of Durham county council looking at council tax records and other resources and of door-to-door canvassing, which will still be key.
	My constituency has quite a stable population, but, as I said earlier, in certain parts of it—including parts of Stanley and Chester-le-Street—and especially in
	areas with a lot of private landlord accommodation, the names on the register change fairly often. The Electoral Commission report says:
	“Incompleteness and inaccuracies on the registers are strongly associated with population movement.”
	That comes as no great surprise. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) talked earlier about the transitory nature of much of his constituency’s population, and any Member representing a constituency with a large student population could make the same point.
	The Electoral Commission report also makes it clear that there is a decline in registration in the most densely populated urban areas. It states that that decline may be
	“as much as 10–15 percentage points over the lifetime of the registers.”
	That, too, will come as no great surprise to anyone who has been involved in local government or in elections.
	All EROs must make the accuracy of the register a top priority, and we must take steps to ensure that measures that are already in place are put into effect. We will wait and see whether that is pursued through the Bill or through regulations. If these amendments are not agreed to, there must be regulations that deal with this matter.
	My experience in local councils tells me that we must do more than just rely on local EROs. Councillors must have the political will to take these steps, as must the chief officer. It must be seen as a key priority, for the reasons my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North outlined.
	As amendment 12, tabled by my Front-Bench colleagues, makes clear, the new council tax bill that is sent out every year presents a golden opportunity. Durham county council is running a trial that enables people to tick a box if they want to apply a postal vote. Again, the good councils are doing that, and I think the Minister will agree that good councils will use such measures. This aim is to ensure that councils that are not mandated to use that process will in fact do so, as permitted under existing law.
	It never ceases to amaze me that when new housing estates are built, people are not automatically registered. I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge said earlier—that when people move into a new house, there are more important things to do than making sure they are on the electoral register. They have to change their children’s school, sort out their electricity and bank details, and so on. However, moving home provides a good opportunity to address this issue. About 10 years ago I moved into a new house, and, as I discovered on doing so, people soon receive a demand from the local council. That provides an opportunity to ensure that people are registered, whether by letter or e-mail. Indeed, increasingly, people are registering to pay council tax and other bills by e-mail and other such services. That would ensure that a resident on a new housing estate is registered.
	The situation with new council housing and social housing residents—again, it varies from authority to authority—also never fails to amaze me. When residents move in, local councils know who they are, and that
	information should automatically be used to get them on to the register. In my constituency, two organisations that are separate from the council—Derwentside Homes and Cestria Community Housing—now run all previous council stock. I am sure that they would be happy to co-operate in ensuring that people are on the register when they move in. As the Minister and others have said, there is a lot of information there—it is a question of the will to deal with it.
	Another issue, which I mentioned earlier, is people in residential care. Again, local councils have the power to deal with this. Many such people make a contribution to their fees. However, to judge by the experience of residential care homes and sheltered accommodation in my constituency, unfortunately, the register is often outdated. Because of the nature of such places, there is quite a regular turnover—if I may tactfully put it that way. However, social services and care providers could work with the electoral registration officer to ensure that people are registered. Moreover, there is nothing more upsetting than people getting letters addressed to recently deceased relatives. Such a provision would be a way of taking off the register those who are no longer entitled to be on it because, unfortunately, they are no longer with us.
	The point was also made, in the context of amendment 16, about the broader civic duty to vote. It is difficult to convince people that there is such a duty. Some of my older female constituents remember fighting for the vote and make sure they are registered and vote every time. It is not the same with younger voters; sadly, the struggles that a lot of women went through to get the vote are perhaps not recognised by younger generations. Trying to promote that civic notion would be very difficult.
	As I said earlier, people in my constituency and others thought that a way to avoid paying the old poll tax was to get themselves off the register. I have to say that most constituents who come to see me never use the phrase “council tax”; they still call it the poll tax.
	The system that we have had up to now has worked for good councils, but unless the Bill or regulations force councils to take such action, I doubt whether anything will actually happen.
	Another issue is the training of electoral registration officers. In my experience, some of them are very good and see it as their role to ensure that the register is as up to date as possible, and take pride in doing so. Others—and other councils—see it as something of an afterthought. That issue needs to be looked at.
	Amendment 17 is a common-sense provision that examines some of the other ways in which central Government, who interact with many of our constituents, can help in the electoral registration process. I am big fan of Directgov, through which, two weeks ago, I renewed my driving licence. It is a simple way to pay car tax or to renew a driving licence. The one thing that people have to provide is an address, and, as part of the process the website could ask whether people are registered at that address. When I moved house a couple of years ago, I had to go through that process to change my address. The Government could easily make use of that opportunity, and the same point applies with passports, as was mentioned earlier. It is about making sure that the mechanisms exist to capture such information. Directgov would be an excellent way to ensure that people are
	registered. Perhaps the Minister can say whether it is currently possible to register through Directgov. Once a number has been generated, it links together a person’s interactions with Government. That would be a simple way to address this issue.
	Another issue is the contents of the form and the invitation to vote. We need to think a little bit outside the box in deciding how we are going to deal with this issue. In 11 years as a Member of Parliament, I have noted, as most Members have, that the way in which people interact with MPs has changed. The days of getting large postbags of handwritten letters are coming to an end. We receive an increasing number of e-mails, including, surprisingly, from older people. Councils have the e-mail addresses of those people who register for council tax through that method. Perhaps that could be used as another way of encouraging people to register. We do not necessarily have to use the old-fashioned, traditional form through the door. Here, however, we return to my earlier point about the will of individual councils and officers to adapt to some of these ideas.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge also talked about using the electoral register to reduce fraud. That would make a big difference to the ability of local registration officers to spot individuals who are registering illegally, or those who are using the existing register for identity fraud purposes. That is an increasing problem: as recent figures show, such fraud runs into hundreds of millions of pounds a year. Making provision in respect of the actual need to have an accurate register lets people know that this is important in reducing fraud.
	I am not sure that many people know that, as has been mentioned, being on the electoral register helps them to establish credit worthiness. Those who move addresses often may find that difficult to get, but at least this is a way of giving information that agencies can use. Most people think that being on the register is just about voting. We need to work out how we get the message across that it is important to register for that purpose, too.

Angela Smith: In addition, the use of verification procedures when goods are being ordered online is becoming increasingly obvious. The use of postcode and address details is one of the important aspects of the secure procedure when ensuring that the right people get the right goods when ordering online.

Kevan Jones: My hon. Friend rightly says that people are increasingly using the internet for things such as ordering goods online. Again, I doubt whether many young people know that being on the electoral register is an important source for those types of thing, so that is another good reason why the amendment is important. The terminology is perhaps a bit loose in terms of civic responsibility—I am not sure that many people see it from that point of view—but we could set out a practical reason for young people to register.
	I mentioned driving licences earlier, and new drivers provide an obvious opportunity in this regard. I am not suggesting that everyone applies for their licence when they are 17, but new licences are an obvious way to engage young people and ensure that they are registered to vote and know the importance of that. We should not miss that opportunity.
	The penalty has been mentioned, and I welcome the work of the Committee and the Government in ensuring that the penalty is set out. Again, the test will be whether or not it provides an incentive for people to register. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) has asked a question on this, and it was answered by the hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) on behalf of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. His answer stated that, based on the data that were available in March 2010, only
	“67 prosecutions were initiated in relation to a failure to provide information in response to the…annual canvass.”—[Official Report, 26 October 2010; Vol. 517, c. 166.]
	The Bill’s penalty for not registering will not be meaningful and effective unless it is enacted and enforced. However, it is important to include it in the Bill as a sanction; again, it can be publicised to ensure that people know that there is a potential sanction for not registering to vote.
	The Government have got it right overall on the armoury they will give local returning officers to ensure that the register is as accurate as possible. The proof of the pudding will be in how that is actually used. As I said, the Bill provides a lot of ways in which councils can ensure that people are registered, but councils are not using them. I will be interested to hear how the Minister is going to ensure that the provisions—and his hope that councils and returning officers will use some of these different ways of not only interacting with the public, but using the information they already have—will mean that the register is as accurate as possible. It would be sad to miss this opportunity to ensure not only that more people are registered to vote, but that the registration is accurate as possible.

Chris Ruane: As has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), local government has many ways of contacting electors. It can do so by way of housing benefit, council tax, disabled parking badges, the people it puts in residential care, the home helps who visit people in their homes, contact when people are placed in council and social housing, contact when enforcement and registration is carried out in respect of houses in multiple occupation and contact when new houses, be they private sector or public sector, are built. Local authorities are not extending the invitation to register to many people who use those things. A lot more can be done, but it will take time, effort and resources, and that has been used in the past as an excuse not to act. This Bill and other Bills are bringing about huge constitutional changes, which could dramatically alter the constitutional landscape, and local authorities need to do everything in their power to maximise the registers in their areas by using the previous legislation and this Bill.
	The Government also hold databases, as outlined in amendment 17; they relate to
	“welfare payments, pensions, driving licences, revenue collection, National Insurance and passport applications”.
	All those offer an opportunity for national or local government to extend that invitation to register to people using those things at critical moments in their life. We need to address an issue about sharing national Government databases with local authorities, but there is no issue involved in using local databases within the
	remit of a local authority. Local authority databases can be used for the purpose of registration, and we need to examine ways in which we can improve those channels of communication between national Government and local government to open up those databases. I realise that people have concerns about losing databases; Department for Work and Pensions databases have been found on roundabouts in the past, and that caused a national outrage as it hit the national press—

Kevan Jones: They were never found.

Chris Ruane: Indeed, as my hon. Friend reminds us. We need to keep that in perspective, because although losing those databases was bad, I am sure that new systems can be implemented to allow secure access to those databases for the purpose of registration.
	I also want to talk about the rights and responsibilities of Assembly Members, MPs, councillors, MSPs and Members of the Legislative Assembly in Northern Ireland in respect of putting pressure on electoral registration officers to ensure that the existing legislation and this Bill are monitored, not only by the Electoral Commission, but by us as parliamentarians—as elected representatives. Last week, I e-mailed 250 Labour Members with a specific list of questions that the Electoral Commission had designed for MPs to put to their ERO. I have circulated those questions to Labour MPs and asked them to go to see their ERO with their Assembly Member, with their local group leader to put pressure on the ERO to ensure that everything is being implemented. That should also be examined in this Bill to ensure that elected representatives at least have that invitation to work with EROs to maximise the register. I have done this in my constituency, where we have a fantastic ERO, Gareth Evans, who has increased the registration in my constituency from 47,000 to 57,000 in a two or three-year period. That is excellent and I pay tribute to Gareth for his work on that.
	On the invitation to register, we also need to ensure that there is no political interference by politicians who do not want people to be registered. Liberal Democrat Members will be aware—I have mentioned this in the past—that when the ex-Liberal leader of Islington council was asked by the Labour group to have a registration drive to get the unregistered on to the register, he said, “No, we are not doing that. Keeping people off the register is how we win elections.” If there is such a degree of political interference within a local authority, it needs to be tackled. The case might have been isolated, if high profile, but we need measures to tackle political interference if it occurs.
	Such interference could be tackled in a number of ways. There does not necessarily need to be political interference; there could be political, bureaucratic or administrative incompetence. If the job is not being done and the mustard is not being cut, a solution is needed to allow registration to take place. I ask the Minister to consider, in the final analysis, transferring the rights of a local authority’s underperforming electoral registration department to that of a neighbouring authority that is achieving or letting the Electoral Commission carry out the registration in emergency circumstances. Alternatively—I say this as a Labour Member—there is
	perhaps a case for using the private sector. Experian has built the databases and knows exactly where the unregistered are, so perhaps there is an opportunity for its involvement if local authorities are too lazy or if there is political interference.
	A number of the amendments would put the onus on the local authority to explain why it is important for an individual to be on the register. More needs to be done and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham that the question of civic duty might fall on deaf ears. Having said that, I am very glad that the Government, who initially talked about downgrading the civic duty to a lifestyle choice, listened to the avalanche of complaints from across the country, from the civic sector and from Opposition parties and decided to keep the civic duty. The explanation from Ministers, from political parties and from the ERO of the reasons why someone should be on the electoral register and the benefits that it brings in getting a mortgage and credit is important. If members of the local population are not on the register, they will not have access to proper credit and will be forced into the hands of loan sharks.
	A great deal more education and explanation are needed from EROs and us. I am pleased that a lot of progress has been made. I pay tribute to the Ministers, whom I have hounded over the past two and a half years with hundreds of written parliamentary questions and oral outbursts in Committee and in the Chamber. I make no apology for that. A group of dedicated MPs from all parties have pursued the issue and progress has been made, specifically on the issue of fixed penalty notices. I pay tribute to Ministers for that but I maintain that the whole Bill is unnecessary. These things could have been done with all-party support, through Labour’s Political Parties and Elections Act 2009. I did not support it—I voted for it, but it was not in my heart— but I accepted it as a political reality and necessity. These things could have been achieved with all-party parliamentary consensus in 2015.
	I recently asked in a parliamentary question why Labour’s Act was negated and the 2015 deadline was brought forward to 2014. The answer was that it was imperative to go through all this turmoil and upset and to take up all this parliamentary time because there is great concern out there among the Great British public, 36% of whom believe that there is electoral fraud, that meant we must tackle the issue. I also asked how many cases of electoral fraud there were, and the Minister replied that there were a couple a year.

Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Electoral Commission’s report on the pilots a few years ago, which was buried following outcry from the Daily Mail and others, said that in most of the pilots—including e-voting, text voting and, to give an example from my constituency, full postal voting—fraud was negligible?

Chris Ruane: My hon. Friend is reading my mind—

Kevan Jones: I hope not.

Chris Ruane: The question I drafted on the train from Rhyl to Euston this morning expands on my hon. Friend’s point. It asks what assessment the Minister has made—he might want to think about this overnight—of the reasons why 36% of the British public think that
	there is electoral fraud, on the impact of Ministers and Government MPs talking about electoral fraud and on its coverage in the media—

Michael Weir: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to come back to the amendments. I have been rather lenient, but he is going very wide of the subject now.

Chris Ruane: You have been very lenient, Mr Weir, and have let me rabbit on for a few minutes.
	I give the Government credit for their recognition of representations from both sides of the House, civic society, the police, the Electoral Reform Society, Unlock Democracy, the courts and so on. They have listened, but this was all unnecessary. If they had stuck to Labour’s 2015 timetable, we would not have been discussing the matter today and would perhaps have been discussing the economy, growth or other such issues.

Mark Harper: It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir.
	I should acknowledge the very charitable comments—for him—made by the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane). It was pleasant to have such a polite outburst, compared with some of his previous ones. I acknowledge straight away that he is right that we all have a responsibility to help get these matters right. As Members of Parliament, we are in a very powerful position when it comes to talking to our electoral registration officers, asking what they are doing and checking that they are doing everything that is necessary. The same applies to senior councillors. I often hear anecdotal evidence that EROs say that they have trouble getting the resources to do the job properly, but the EROs and returning officers are often the more senior officers in the council. Councillors are very interested in ensuring that the electoral register is done properly and we as Members of Parliament have an opportunity, which the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we should take, to ask EROs what they are doing. When the Bill becomes law, as I hope that it will, it will be incumbent on us all to talk to our EROs, to check that they are doing all the work and to ask how they are progressing in implementing the provisions.
	I thank the hon. Members for Vale of Clwyd and for North Durham (Mr Jones) for what they said about the Select Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) and the excellent work it did in pre-legislative scrutiny. I also thank the hon. Member for North Durham for what he said about our response to that scrutiny. There is not much point in its being done only for us to ignore all of it, and we made a number of significant changes before we introduced the Bill. I should also praise the hon. Gentleman for mentioning accuracy as well as completeness. They are of equal importance and the Government have focused on both.
	It is relevant to amendment 34, standing in the name of the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, to confirm that the Government have concluded that the edited version of the electoral register should be retained. We have discussed whether it should be abolished with interested parties on both sides of the debate and received numerous representations. The previous Government consulted, but did not have
	the opportunity to take a decision before leaving office. There are those, particularly in the electoral community, including the Electoral Commission, who argue that having an edited register acts as a disincentive to people registering, but we have seen no convincing evidence of that. On the other side of the argument, some argue that it provides significant wider social and economic benefits, and in the previous Government’s consultation, 7,447 of about 7,600 responses favoured the edited register’s retention for those reasons. On balance—it is a finely balanced decision—the Government believe that keeping the edited register from which voters can choose to opt out is the right decision. I know it will be disappointing to some and welcomed by others, but that is the decision the Government have made.
	The group of amendments have a theme of inserting various prescriptions about what local authorities should do and the information on the forms. A general point is that putting that sort of stuff in the Bill is not the right approach. In many cases, there is detail in some of the secondary legislation we have already published in draft, and I think that that sort of specific provision is better there than in the Bill.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) is no longer here, unfortunately, but in an intervention on the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), he referred to British citizenship, and I think it worth stating for the record that the franchise for parliamentary elections consists of British citizens, Irish citizens who are resident in the United Kingdom, Commonwealth citizens who are resident here and either have or do not need leave to remain and, of course, British citizens who live overseas and are registered to vote; and for local elections, to that list is added European Union citizens resident in the United Kingdom. It is a complicated franchise and perhaps not what would have been produced had we started with a clean sheet of paper, but as I have said before, we have reached that position because of our complicated history, and when Parliament has considered the matter previously, it has decided to stay in broadly the same place. Given my hon. Friend’s comment, I thought it important to make that clear on the record.
	Amendment 12 is about putting a statement on registration in the council tax communication. My first point—I think the hon. Lady alluded to this—is that I am not sure that the council tax document is read cover to cover by every voter, even though this year many will have been able to read that their council has frozen their council tax, thanks to the policies of this Government, which I am sure would have come as very welcome news. As well as not being enormously well read, the document tends to be looked at, if it is looked at by anyone, by the head of the household or the person who pays the council tax. I suspect it does not reach into every part of the home.
	The hon. Lady is right to say that councils and registration officers have to contact people who are not on the register. That is why we are continuing the annual canvass and placing a new obligation on registration officers to invite unregistered people to register when they become aware of them, which applies all year round. In the second set of data-matching pilots, later this year, we will look for good ways to spot such people. The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd made the point that local authorities have access to council tax data. If the database lists someone who pays council
	tax but that person is not registered to vote, under the proposals registration officers have a legal duty to use that information to write to that person to invite them to join the electoral register. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, all the other databases the local authority has can be used as well. That may be a good way of promoting electoral registration and some local authorities may think it effective, but it is not necessarily something we want to specify in the Bill. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 13 would give local authorities a duty to invite people who move into the area and register for council tax purposes to join the electoral register. Local authorities have access to their council tax records and so are aware of such people, and the Electoral Commission’s guidance states that when they send out council tax bills, they should send rolling registration forms, but again, that will capture only the bill payer—the person who pays the council tax—and will not help to identify other people. However, the hon. Lady is right about the need to find ways to capture people who move home, as they are the group of people who are least likely to be registered and there is a direct link between the length of housing tenure and electoral registration. We are looking at various solutions, in particular solutions relating to the sorts of transaction people engage in when they move home. Registering for council tax may be one of those transactions, but again, I am not sure that we want to specify it in the Bill.
	Amendment 16, to which the hon. Lady spoke as well, is about putting on electoral registration forms
	“a clear explanation that the electoral register is used for other civic purposes”
	and alluding to the financial checks for which the electoral register is used. Having seen the draft secondary legislation that we published last week, the hon. Lady will know that the IER forms will carry a statement about the processing of the data that the individual supplies, which will set out clearly what the information is used for, both on the full register—for purposes such as credit checks and fraud prevention—and on the edited register.
	Several hon. Members spotted that we intend to work with the Electoral Commission on designing the forms. Several Members spotted that in clause 5 there is a power to give that responsibility to the Electoral Commission. When the Electoral Commission designs forms, it carries out user testing in order to produce forms that are clear, brief and to the point, and to ensure that they are properly understood and properly completed. We want to use that work to decide what should be on the form and whether there should be some other documentation with the forms. When the Electoral Commission has done that work, we have the powers in clause 5 and in paragraph 18 of schedule 4 to require registration officers to provide that information. We would want to do that if, for example, there are aspects of the forms that the Electoral Commission identified as effective.
	The information could also be in the campaigns that are run by the Electoral Commission or the local authority. I live in London, in the borough of Lambeth, and I have seen some of the council’s advertisements, which focus—

Kevan Jones: May I make a suggestion concerning the registration form? There should be a simple tick-box for people to register for a postal vote. In some cases, they have to register to vote, and on a different form register for a postal vote. A tick-box on the registration form would be much easier.

Mark Harper: Let me conclude my previous thought and I will come to that.
	Some local authorities already use the register for the other purposes for which it can be used—for example, to run credit checks, or when people want credit for a mobile phone—as a positive method of encouraging people to be registered. This is where is it important to give EROs the power to consider their local circumstances. Depending on the area, depending how many people move, how often and the kinds of people, there are different messages that may work with different groups of people. The ERO should have the opportunity to do that. The Electoral Commission will be doing some work with us on this. When the commission suggests that certain things should be on the form and should be mandated, we have the powers to do that.
	On postal votes and the point made by the hon. Member for North Durham, a separate form must be completed. In order to prevent fraud, people have to provide identifiers, such as date of birth and a signature for the electoral registration officer—[Interruption] The hon. Member for North Durham says, “On one form.” If we are moving towards allowing people to register electronically, a postal voter would still have to provide a hard copy signature, so the process cannot be made completely seamless. However, the hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Some local authorities may want to collect all the information, including date of birth, at one time. I will take his suggestion and see whether there is anything in our regulations which would prevent that. It may be one of the things that we can ask the Electoral Commission and some of our stakeholders to investigate to see whether that would be helpful for voters.

Kevan Jones: I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I accept that a signature and date of birth are needed, but surely those could be provided on one form. That would save council administration and encourage people who want to apply for a postal vote to do so more easily.

Mark Harper: I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion, and, as I said, I will take it away and look at it. We will make sure that there is nothing that prevents such a suggestion, and we will also investigate it with our stakeholders, including the commission, administrators and a lot of the groups, particularly focusing on those who might find a postal vote helpful. We can perhaps trial some of that and see whether it is effective. That is a helpful suggestion from the hon. Gentleman.
	Amendment 17 links Government Departments with responsibility for welfare payments, pensions, driving licences, revenue collection and national insurance with information about the electoral register. I agree with that up to a point and we will already be doing some of that. However, it would not be helpful to mandate that, given that most voters are already on the electoral register and quite a lot of people do not move about all the time. We do not want to insist on making every
	transaction with each of those Departments more complex. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge about signposting and making that kind of linkage more effective.
	The hon. Member for North Durham mentioned driving licences, and we are working with the Department for Transport on that. He also mentioned Directgov, and the Government Digital Service, which is working with us on developing the online registration tool, is also responsible for Directgov, so they will work seamlessly together. Where Departments deal with people who move about or new voters, we are considering signposting and giving people prompts. If we did that electronically and people needed only to tick a box, potentially they could be redirected straight to the site where they could register online. For some voters, that would be an effective way of driving up registration.

Kevan Jones: Directgov would be a good system, because the identifier is down to the individual, and it allows one to do a whole range of things. To be able to register to vote through it, accepting that a form may be required to obtain a signature later, would be much easier for a lot of people, especially when they move house. A lot can be done through Directgov in one place, which is always useful.

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman makes some good points. Once we have an online method of registering in the first instance, that will be very effective. It already works very well in a number of local authorities for re-registering each year. I have just received my form in my constituency of the Forest Dean and I was able to re-register in a matter of minutes on my BlackBerry, putting in the code and ticking the opt-out box for the edited register. That worked very smoothly and a confirmation e-mail arrived. Many local authorities already do that. What they cannot do, because they are not empowered to do so, is effect new registrations in that way. Once we can do that, many people will move to that, either doing it themselves, or, if they need assistance, through an assisted digital method. It is important that people have that assistance and I think that is where people will start going.
	The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, like Members beforehand, raised concerns about younger voters, particularly attainers—16 and 17-year-olds who get registered. I have been to Northern Ireland and seen how they register young people directly in schools. The chief electoral officer’s staff do a presentation, focusing on the civic side and the need to register to have a vote and to have one’s say, but they are not above looking at some of the other reasons that young people might want to be registered to vote, such as credit. Northern Ireland has a voter ID card and electoral staff run also through some of its practical uses, such as proof of age. Interestingly, as I have said in debates before, now that younger voters are engaged with directly, a higher percentage of them are registered to vote than in Great Britain, where we rely on mum and dad to do that.
	So, I am a bit more hopeful. Having spoken to young people when I visit schools, as I am sure have many Members, I think that such direct engagement is a way to get them not just to register to vote but to use their vote. One of the depressing points is that young people, even when registered, are the least likely to cast their vote. In a sense, getting lots of people registered just to
	see them not vote is not very encouraging, so I think that we can all do a better job on that. However, as I said, I am more hopeful about younger voters engaging directly. There is some evidence that if we can engage with voters directly, rather than relying on one person in the household, we might all be pleasantly surprised.
	Last but not least, let me turn to amendment 34, tabled by the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), on behalf of a number of its members. In passing, I congratulate him and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) on the explanatory statements to their amendments, which were very helpful to Members. The hon. Gentleman can explain to his Front Benchers how to produce such statements, because they did not manage to produce any for their amendments, meaning that we had great difficulty following what they were on about, which caused a little altercation earlier in the debate. As we would expect from a Chair of a Select Committee, he offers an exemplar of good parliamentary procedure.
	With regard to the hon. Gentleman’s specific request, in our draft secondary legislation, which I hope he will note we have published while the Bill is still going through the House—that was one of the questions I was asked when I appeared before his Committee, and we have already done that in a number of areas—we have said that the application forms will include a statement on the processing of data, so that it will be very clear what the information and the full register and the edited register can be used for. The Electoral Commission will ensure that the forms are as user-friendly as possible.
	Of course, if people are to be able to opt out of the edited register, it is important that that is a very clear choice for them. Again, some local authorities currently have very clear forms and are clear about what the data are used for, but some do not. Some, I am told—I have seen evidence of this—slightly misrepresent what the information is used for in order to encourage people to opt out, and some do not provide very clear information on what the decision is about. We are looking at that, and the Electoral Commission will do some user testing to make sure that the forms are clear and that people are clear about what the register is used for and what the decision to opt out is about. The hon. Member for Nottingham North is absolutely right that it is very important that they do so.
	Part of our thinking behind keeping the edited register was making sure that the information on voters’ decisions to opt out is not more widely available. That is acceptable. If they are not sure and they are not given a clear decision, that is clearly not a satisfactory position, so we will be working closely with the Electoral Commission to ensure that the forms are clear and straightforward. On that basis, I urge the hon. Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge and for Nottingham North, respectively, to withdraw and not press their amendments.

Angela Smith: May I echo the comments of other Members in the Chamber and say that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir?
	Indeed, it was a pleasure to listen to the contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who chairs the Select Committee. As
	other Members have said, he did a superb job in the report that the Committee produced. I also appreciated his comments about the importance of the registration process to democracy—a point we have made repeatedly from the Front Bench over the two days in Committee. He mentioned the sacrifices that have been made in the name of democracy by people in the Nottingham area in the past. I would add to that record the campaign waged by the Levellers, no less, many of whom were shot in the churchyard in Burford in Oxfordshire. And to that list we can add the suffragettes. The history is long and it is one that we should be proud of in some ways.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) outlined perfectly the importance of extending the ways in which people can register to vote, particularly online, and talked about the importance of the amendment relating to credit and mortgage facilities.
	I put on the record once again the long and arduous campaign that my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) has waged not so much to get this legislation and approach on the statute book, as to get it right. My hon. Friend talked about the rights and responsibilities of elected Members, and I join the Minister in underlining the responsibilities of elected representatives at every level on that score. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I and my colleagues from the city of Sheffield have done exactly as he has recommended in the past, and it has had an impact on the work carried out by our local electoral registration officer.
	I have been quite heartened by the Minister’s response to the four amendments before us in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr David). It has been made absolutely clear that there is a place one way or another—via secondary legislation, guidance issued by the Electoral Commission or its work in designing the necessary forms for the new process—for the points that we have made in our amendments, and that the Government take them seriously and have listened to them, so the Opposition’s response has to be that we will watch very carefully to see how the Minister’s comments play out as the process unrolls, unwinds and is implemented over the next few months and years.
	On amendment 17, the signposting principle that the Minister outlined, particularly in relation to new voters and people who move, is important, and the Opposition take his points about young people. The point about electoral registration officers, or their staff in a big authority area such as Sheffield, Leeds or Manchester, going into a school to educate young people and encourage them to participate in the democratic process—perhaps as part of citizenship classes—is a very important one which makes a valuable contribution to the debate, but it will require resources.
	Electoral registration officers and their staff will have to feel that they have the time and money to spend on undertaking such work. In a city such as Sheffield, there are almost 180 schools, 27 or 28 of which are secondary, so we are talking about a significant commitment on the part of EROs and their departments to make the process work, but I take the Minister’s point and accept that citizenship classes in schools could benefit enormously from such engagement with the local democratic process. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Graham Allen: I beg to move amendment 33, page 5, line 12, after ‘penalty’, insert ‘of £500’.
	The amendment would provide that the fine for failing to comply with a requirement to make an application to be on the electoral register would be set at £500.

Michael Weir: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 14, page5,line14,at end insert—
	‘(7A) The civil penalty shall be £100.’.
	Amendment 15,in schedule 3, page19, leave out lines 9 and 10.

Graham Allen: It is a great pleasure to speak again on these very important issues and, in particular, on the amendments before us, regarding the civic duty that we all have to vote, and the question of what a society does when, in a voluntaristic democracy, some individuals consistently refuse to play by the rules, to play their part and to carry out their share of the democratic duty that should fall on all of us.
	We have heard a lot about the sacrifices that people have made, and I will not go over those issues again, but, when one looks at the history books and sees what sacrifices people made to achieve the vote, one finds that it adds great resonance to our debate. We have all had the experience of people who say, “Well, I don’t bother. I don’t even register. A plague on all your houses —it doesn’t mean anything to me.” As far as I am concerned, that is breaking the social contract that we all have when we commit to serving our democracy. If we do not maintain, hone and develop that social contract, we leave the door open for those who would take away our very democracy.
	Therefore, on behalf of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, I am taking what might at first sight appear to be a rather draconian view. It is that, in extreme circumstances, after many warnings and much discussion, there should be a power—a reserve power—to fine those who deliberately flout the rules and regulations of registration.

Jonathan Edwards: How did the hon. Gentleman’s Committee come up with the figure of £500?

Graham Allen: I do not think that any science was involved in coming to that figure; the Committee felt that it should be pitched at a reasonable level. If it were pitched lower—at a parking or traffic-offence level—it might be regarded less seriously. Where it is actually pitched is a matter for debate and for the Government, but I hope that they will listen to people who say that, on the very rare occasions when a prosecution takes place, such offences should be met with an adequate fine.
	I am not suggesting that everyone who fails to register should be fined £500. We heard that in a whole year in this country, people were prosecuted for non-registration only 67 times. That is not quite one in a million, but such prosecutions are a very rare occurrence. However, we need the power to fine so that people understand how seriously we take the matter.
	I congratulate the Government again on how they have moved on a number of these issues. I am delighted to be joined by a member of my Select Committee, my
	hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), who participated in our debates and made sure that so many of our proposals were put in a way that allowed the Government to accept them and take the Bill forward.
	Like the other Committee members, my hon. Friend will remember the early days when it appeared that our electoral system was almost being marketised or commodified by some of the phraseology around at the time. Our right to vote—our democracy—is, in the Committee’s opinion, a civic duty and I am delighted that the Government have reaffirmed that. It is not a consumer choice; it is not a punt, a bet or going down the shops—it is about how we run our society. There are alternatives to democracy; it is important that it is healthy and strong and that everybody participates in it.

Ian Mearns: From my hon. Friend’s perspective, would the £500 represent more of a preventive measure, which, hopefully, garners so much registration that it would never have to be used? A lower figure might mean that many more people would not register and would be taken to court.

Graham Allen: My hon. Friend makes an important point. If someone is fined for failing to register, that is a symbol of failure for us all—Government and non-Government Members, those on Select Committees and those who are not. We want everybody in our democracy to participate. Many of us have said on visits to schools and other places, “Yes, of course, in a partisan way we care about the way you vote, but we come and do these things because we feel you’ve got to exercise your rights in a democracy and as a citizen.” The lessons that we give to our children, particularly teenagers, when we talk to them in those terms apply to everybody.
	It would be a failure if we fined people every time, but as my hon. Friend said, there needs to be a preventive, deterrent effect that encourages people to vote who might otherwise say, “Well, nothing will happen if I don’t, so I’m not going to bother.” If the thought that something might happen is in the back of their mind, a lot of people will be encouraged to register who otherwise would not do so. If they then choose not to vote or decide to go to the polling station and spoil their ballot, that is their decision, but they are enabled to make that decision by the very fact that they are on the register, and disabled from doing so if they are not on the register or encourage others not to be on the register.

Mark Williams: I, too, welcome the Government’s direction of travel on the penalty. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that rather than becoming too hung up about the figure, we should consider how to communicate the fact that there is a penalty at all? It is about the size of the font and the prominence given to the wording in the documentation that is sent out as much as the scale of the fine.

Graham Allen: At the risk of summoning the ghost of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), the hon. Gentleman makes that point far more articulately, and perhaps more often, than I do. If we can persuade people to vote because they have got this message clearly from the panoply of paperwork that we
	send out to get them to register, then that in itself is a good thing, and it will mean that the threat of deploying a fine is not acted on.
	As the Minister said, members of the Select Committee are trying to be as good as we can in giving the Committee an explanatory statement of the amendments so that Members can wander into the debate and know exactly what we are talking. The statement is straightforward. We hope that the deterrent would be used only very sparingly and rarely, if ever, but it says, in effect, that the concept of registering to vote is not about marketisation or convenience but about values—the values of which we in this place must be the guardians at every conceivable opportunity. The amendment is about the right of every qualified individual in this country to vote for the governance of their choice, and we believe that it would safeguard and extend the possibility of all of us enjoying that right.

Richard Shepherd: The burden of the argument in the earlier part of the speech by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) seemed to be that there should be a fine for not voting. If I have misunderstood that, I apologise.
	In the long history of these islands, people have sought to accomplish the very thing that we represent here—a representative democracy that is their check on autocratic government and all the things that go with it. I profoundly believe in exercising the right to vote. I have never not voted, with the exception of the time when I was abroad as a student, when it was not possible to vote as such a person. However, I also believe that with a sense of liberty goes the right not to vote. This is a clear choice of citizens. When I first stood for election during the 1980s, most of the polls in my area, which is in the west midlands and is not the wealthiest of regions any more, we had turnouts of between 79% and 81%. As we know, the collection of data for the electoral register—the very thing that we are talking about—is under-recording numbers because of movements or deaths. Therefore, 79% to 81% is a very good turnout. Only in the most recent years has the turnout collapsed. Who is to say why?

Graham Allen: May I reassure the hon. Gentleman, whose record is second to none in this House in the service of democracy, that nothing in my amendment indicates that someone should be fined for not voting? The sanction would apply to people who do not register and should apply only in rare cases as a way of encouraging individuals to get on the register. People may then choose to not vote, to spoil their ballot paper or to vote for the party of their choice.

Richard Shepherd: I stand for a complete register. I do not know that I would go as far as to force people to register, unless it was for census purposes. I see the failure of the census as often as not.

Ian Mearns: Will the hon. Gentleman muse on the new Boundary Commission rule that a minimum number of electors has to be found in a ward, and that if the number is even one short, a whole other electoral ward must be brought in to make the constituency up to the correct size? We could therefore have a situation in which that happens because of the non-registration of
	one person. That is how the rules are written, as I understand them. In that scenario, the registration of one voter becomes vital.

Richard Shepherd: I would think that the truth of the matter is that the rough must be taken with the smooth. It is the particularisation that I do not like.
	I agree that having a correct census is fundamental to a democracy, and yet that is not universal. There are not many fines in relation to the census and we still do not have a complete one. However, I am very cautious about the idea of forcing anyone to do anything in their relationship with the democratic process, whether it is voting for parties or anything else. Australia has a fine for not voting, in theory, but I do not think that that is appropriate for us. It would be an inhibition on liberty. If I do not wish to be part of a process, as a free-born Briton, surely I have that right. That is the essence of what being British was about once upon a time.
	I am not going to get excited, because I have been here a long time and I have heard all the passing nostrums. I am not saying that this is a nostrum, because the hon. Member for Nottingham North is trying to address a genuine worry; I do not doubt that. However, I have the sense that I am free born and that I may do what I wish, with my view of public officials, because that is entirely a matter for me, and that I should not be required to register with the possibility of a penalty if I do not vote. That seems to me to be the other side of the coin to liberty.

Wayne David: To follow on from the point that has just been made, I believe that in a democracy everybody should be able to choose whether to exercise their right to vote, but to do that they have to be on the register. That is what this debate is about. People must be on the register so that they are able to choose whether to vote in an election.
	The Government are committed to continuing with the fine under the current legislation of £1,000 for households that refuse to co-operate with the electoral registration officer. However, they have had second thoughts on whether it is appropriate to introduce a fine or civil penalty for individuals who refuse to co-operate.
	Like other hon. Members, I welcome that change, because initially the Government suggested in the draft Bill that registration would be a matter of personal choice. Many argued that to register is a civic duty and responsibility, and that there should be a civil penalty attached for individuals who do not co-operate.
	I also welcome the fact that the Government intend to use the fine sparingly. Their impact assessment states:
	“Currently the criminal offence of not responding to a household registration form is used to encourage compliance and thus maintain the completeness of the electoral register. It is sparsely applied in practice and 150 prosecutions are actually initiated annually. It is intended that the new civil penalty will be used in the same way thus the propensity to issue fines should not increase,”
	which is perfectly reasonable. The important thing is the declaration—I take the point made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) on that. It is important to make such a stipulation prominent, so that people are aware of their responsibility. The threat—the incentive—to comply is important, not the penalty.

Graham Allen: The penalty is not the first but the last resort. People can do a range of administrative things, including visits, letters and calls, which hon. Members use within political parties to get people out to vote, before a fine is levied. The penalty will enable people to register. It would not be fixed in the sense that a bureaucrat will say, “I see Mrs Smith hasn’t registered. Send her a £500 fine.” It will be the last in a very long chain of events.

Wayne David: My hon. Friend makes the point extremely well. He mentions in passing his proposal for a £500 fine. The official Opposition are proposing a £100 fine. Both probing amendments were tabled because we are disappointed that the Government, despite the encouragement we have given them, have not proposed a figure for the fine. We are told that the figure will be in regulations in the not-too-distant future.
	As I have mentioned regulations, Mr Weir, may I make a point in passing? The Minister referred a number of times to the draft regulations placed in the Library last Monday. I went to the Library after our debate last Monday and was told that the regulations were placed there at 4.1 pm, or 22 minutes before the debate began. As he well knows, it is impossible for any reasonable person to discuss such regulations with such access. In addition, the existence of the draft regulations is more theoretical than real—only two appeared, when the others would have been directly relevant to the debate. We must wait for the publication of the other draft regulations, but the communication placed in the Library was clear that there are no draft regulations in six important areas.

Graham Allen: The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) spoke of affronts to liberty, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is an affront to liberty that Ministers can set the level of the fine by diktat outwith the processes of the House? All Governments have introduced such provisions—I am not making a partisan point—but we should take that power by amending the Bill this evening. All hon. Members would understand that, and the Government would have the ability to adjust the fine over the years, because of inflation or because a different view is taken of the offence.

Wayne David: My hon. Friend makes his point very clearly. That is precisely what we would have liked: full parliamentary scrutiny, with the figure having been presented to us in the Bill or at least in regulations that we could have considered in parallel. In fact, we put that request to the Government months ago, so I am disappointed—not from a partisan point of view but in the interest of scrutiny and democracy—that it has not been possible. There are several gems in the regulations. I do not want to digress, but there is a reference to “agile methodology”. That is a new one on me. Perhaps the Minister could write to me about what it means with regard to verification.
	We do not know the size of the civil penalty the Government have in mind. The Minister was reported as saying that it would be something like a parking fine, but that does not take us very far forward. As I said on Second Reading, in Westminster local authority, the higher-rate parking fine is £130 and the lower-rate £110;
	in my own area of Caerphilly the higher rate is £75 and the lower rate £30; and next door, in Rhondda Cynon Taff, the higher rate is £50 and the lower rate £25. I could go on, but the point is that there is a tremendous national variation. We know that these fines will not vary, but to say that they will be like a parking fine does not tell us much at all.

Ian Mearns: The variation around the country makes it difficult to draw a comparison. There is little preventive or deterrent measure within the level of fines suggested; otherwise, these parking tickets would not be issued on a day-to-day basis.

Wayne David: That is right. A balance has to be struck. We had hoped to debate whether the Government had struck that balance, but unfortunately we cannot come to that decision. Perhaps before the end of the debate the Minister will tell us what level of fine the Government have in mind.

Mark Harper: I want to say one or two words about the draft secondary legislation. I do not apologise for when I laid it in the Library, because we are not debating it; we are debating the Bill. I put it in the Library so that Members could see it. I know I said this last week, but I will repeat it, because the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) needs to think it through: I will take no lectures from him about secondary legislation. Two similar Bills delegating significant powers to Ministers on electoral matters were introduced in the previous Parliament. I shall tell the House when the previous Government published the secondary legislation. It never published any in draft during the parliamentary passage of the Bill. The first any Members saw of any secondary legislation was after royal assent. I have published the draft secondary legislation while the Bill is still before this House, let alone the other one, and I have said that the rest of the secondary legislation will be published by the autumn, before the Bill has finished its passage through the other place. It might not be perfect and we might not be paragons of virtue, but we are doing an awful lot better than the previous Government. He ought to think about that before makes that point again.

Chris Ruane: Does the Minister accept that the difference between the two previous Bills, which, I admit, were certainly not perfect, and this Bill is that the former were not highly politicised? The 2009 legislation had cross-party support, but this Bill is highly contentious. We believe it to be highly politicised and the Conservative party’s ticket to winning the next election and the one afterwards. There is polarity there, which is why we need to see the fine print.

Mark Harper: I am not going to labour the point—

Michael Weir: Order. Before the Minister gets too far into this, let me remind the Committee that we are not debating the secondary legislation at this point. Let us debate what is before the Committee. The Minister can reply if he wants to, but I hope he will shortly bring us back to the main subject.

Mark Harper: That is a good steer, Mr Weir. Let me make the point in passing that the 2009 Act to which the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane)
	referred was not uncontroversial. We voted against it by way of a reasoned amendment because it did not include provisions on individual electoral registration. They were put in only when the Bill went to the other place, so I think we have done very well. Let me clarify what we have done. We have added to the secondary legislation and put in provisions setting out the steps the registration officer should take before insisting on a penalty and we have set out some information about the penalty, to which I shall return in a few moments.
	Let me explain, as the hon. Member for Caerphilly mentioned it, that “agile methodology” is a way of developing information technology—the way it is done in the private sector—in order to avoid complicated and massive IT systems that cost a fortune, do not work and then have to be scrapped. We have learned much from how the previous Government operated; this is the way in which this Government will develop IT systems, and I think that they will be much more successful.
	Picking up on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd), let me be clear from the beginning that we are talking about registration; we are absolutely not talking about imposing a penalty for not voting. Voting is voluntary and it will remain voluntary. While this Government are in office, there will be no proposals to change that. I am always disappointed when people do not vote, but they absolutely have the right not to, and it is our job as politicians to give them reasons for going out to vote or use their postal vote and to ensure that there is no obstacle to their doing so. If they do not vote, it will be because we have not given them sufficiently compelling reasons either to vote for us or against us, depending on their point of view. That remains the case.
	It is worth setting out—it is a bit of a stand part debate, but it is relevant to the amendments—how we have arrived at this point. Members will know that it is not now and will not be in the future a specific offence not to register to vote in the first instance. The current position is that if people do not respond to the household form or, indeed, other inquiries that the electoral registration officer makes—this is the current way of getting on the electoral register—it is a criminal offence with a penalty of up to £1,000. We have no plans to change that; it will remain in place.
	The question we faced with the invitation to register was whether to have a penalty. The hon. Member for Caerphilly is quite right that when the draft Bill was first published, it did not include a penalty. Several hon. Members have touched on the public policy reasons justifying a penalty. Some aspects of registration affect other people. First, the register provides the source of jurors, and it is important to have balanced juries made up of a proper cross-section of adult electors. Secondly, electoral registers can affect boundary changes—not just parliamentary boundary changes, but local ones as well, as highlighted by several hon. Members. That is why we decided it made sense to have a civil penalty, which was also in response to the Select Committee’s report and some of the evidence that was taken.
	As for the amendments—the Select Committee’s amendment 33 and amendment 14 from the hon. Member for Caerphilly—regardless of the amounts specified, I do not believe it sensible to put the civil penalty directly in the Bill, as this would be better done through secondary legislation. I hesitate to correct the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Chairman of the
	Select Committee, but these matters are not at the diktat of the Minister. All the Bill’s powers are made by Ministers, but they all have to be approved by way of affirmative resolutions by both Houses. There is proper parliamentary control over the exercise of that Executive power.
	I hope that both hon. Members will withdraw their amendments; as I said, it is not appropriate to put the figures directly on the face of the Bill rather than implement them through secondary legislation. As for how we get to the figure for the penalty, I am afraid that the hon. Member for Caerphilly is going to remain disappointed for today, as I do not propose to pluck a figure out of the air. The process we want to adopt is one that we have done all the way through—we are going to listen to people. We have explained how we will go about this. We think that the analogy with parking fines is sensible. The hon. Member for Caerphilly observed that there was a range of parking fines across the country, but the range is fairly narrow. A parking fine is not £500; it is about £40 at the lower end and £130 at the higher end.
	There are some good arguments in favour of setting the fine at the higher level, for instance to reflect the importance of the matter and to ensure that it is a proper deterrent, but there are also arguments in favour of setting it at the lower level. Unlike the £1,000 fine issued by magistrates who can take into account the circumstances of voters—both the extent to which they believe them to be culpable and their financial resources—this will be a fixed penalty. It should also be borne in mind that although the criminal penalty involves a maximum fine of £1,000, the fines that are actually issued are usually much lower. During the 2011 canvass, the London borough of Hounslow successfully prosecuted 10 people for not providing the information required, but the average fine issued was £125. That was because magistrates were able to take various factors into account. This penalty will be fixed throughout the country, and when it is issued it will not be possible for the electoral registration officer to alter it.
	We have listed a number of factors that should guide the arguments in favour of a higher or lower level, given broadly the same range as that which applies to parking fines, and we will do some targeted work with our stakeholders and consider their responses. I suspect that some will favour a reasonably high number for encouragement purposes, while others will be a little concerned about the potential impact.
	I have listened carefully to the arguments that have been advanced today. I think that the hon. Member for Caerphilly’s proposal is at least in the ball park of the parking fine system, while the figure suggested by the hon. Member for Nottingham North on behalf of his Select Committee is rather on the high side. We will draw our conclusions, and Members will be able to see what we have come up with.
	I should also say, in response to a point made by both the hon. Member for Caerphilly—who referred to the impact assessment—and the hon. Member for Nottingham North, that this is not the first course to which electoral registration officers should resort. We do not want them running around the country handing out fines like confetti; indeed, in an ideal world we would not want fines at all.
	Those who receive parking fines can usually reduce them by paying promptly, but they cannot reduce them to zero. In this instance, everyone who incurs a civil penalty—and we hope that the number will be no more than the 100 a year or so who incur criminal penalties—will be able to reduce the amount to zero by registering to vote. If they register as a result of incurring the penalty, the electoral registration officer will be able to waive it. The purpose is to persuade people to register, not to issue fines. The Bill will prevent registration officers from keeping the money, so that they are not tempted, and so that people do not think that they are issuing the fines in order to use them as a revenue generation exercise, which would be just as bad.
	We will specify—and have set out in draft regulations—what registration officers must do. They must issue the invitation, send reminders and send a door-to-door canvasser, and they must be satisfied that the individual has received the invitation and still resides at the address involved. Only when they have done all that can they tell people that they will issue a notice, and that if they do not register after that, a penalty will be incurred.

Stewart Jackson: The Minister touched on an important point earlier. He will know that some London boroughs, in particular, have given parking attendants an incentive to issue tickets by offering payment by results. Will he include in secondary legislation a methodology that would preclude such activities in areas where the level of registration is usually low in the first instance, so that there is no incentive to fleece the taxpayer?

Mark Harper: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend was present when I said this, but we have included in the Bill the important provision that any revenue from fines does not go to the ERO and is not kept by the local authority. It must go to the centre. The purpose of the fines is to encourage people to register to vote, not to generate revenue for local authorities. Therefore, the process of issuing a penalty will come with a cost to, and a burden on, the local authority. We do not want this to become a means of revenue generation for local authorities, as some people think is the case in respect of parking and speeding fines. I am confident our proposals strike the right balance.

Chris Ruane: Many constituencies with large numbers of unregistered voters cover some of the poorest areas of the country, where cuts in other areas will loom large. EROs will be under a lot of pressure. If they legitimately raise finance through fines, should they not be allowed to keep a proportion of that, to reflect the additional work they will have to do? Will every step be monitored? Further, will there be an increase in bureaucracy, and if so, how will it be paid for?

Mark Harper: I shall make two points in response to the hon. Gentleman’s questions. First, some of our stakeholders are concerned that many people who are not registered to vote may well be poorer people; they do not want people without much money being hit with fines and being financially penalised. We thought about this matter when drafting the legislation, and my view was that it was better to make sure there was not a financial incentive. Everyone who gave us feedback, including
	EROs, said they wanted a penalty. They do not want to issue any penalties, however; rather, they want to be able to write a scary notice on the form saying, “If you don’t do this, something will happen, so you can’t just ignore this form and put it in the bin.” That goes back to a point made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams).
	We will work with the Electoral Commission on how to set out the description of the penalty so that it has the desired effect. It will test that in the design of forms, through user testing. If we come up with forms that are effective in this regard, we will be able to make it mandatory that they are used, which is important because at present authorities do these things in a variety of ways.

Chris Ruane: On this question, may I refer the Minister to the example set by Denbighshire county council, which stated in the middle of its form for registration, “If you do not fill this form in, you will be fined £1,000”? The warning has to be prominent and at the centre of the page, so that the recipients of these forms clearly understand that they must fill them in.

Mark Harper: The Electoral Commission will consider such issues when addressing the design of the form, and I am sure the points the hon. Gentleman raises will be taken into account.
	Having set out why I do not think the level of the fine should be stated in the Bill, and having drawn attention to the draft secondary legislation and the approach we plan to take in coming up with that figure—rather than just making it up, we will listen to what stakeholders have to say—I hope the amendments will be withdrawn so we can allow the clause as currently drafted to stand part of the Bill.

Graham Allen: First, may I name-check another member of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), for her attendance and contribution? She made an epic contribution, and she was extremely helpful to me when I was indisposed, in making sure the Committee carried out its scrutiny duties effectively. Secondly, may I give credit to the Government, as they have moved on this issue? At the outset, there was not to be any fine whatever, and it takes courage, and some cost, to listen, and the Government should be commended in this Chamber and outside it for having done so. There is more to do, of course, but we are now in a position from where we can move forward.
	There were a couple of references in the debate to Robert Caro’s mammoth biography of Lyndon Baines Johnson, who, from a very difficult position, became the leading promoter of civil rights, including civil rights legislation. At the beginning of those enormous volumes, the scene is set by a black woman in the south seeking to get registered to vote. We need to remember, particularly in discussing registration and clause 5, that she was prohibited from participating in the democracy of the United States not by being prevented from voting, but because she could not even register in order then to participate in the voting process. That is why this clause is important, and why I hope the Minister will listen to the arguments that have been made tonight. In order to ensure that he listens even more carefully than he normally does, I will withdraw my amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Schedule 3 agreed to.

Schedule 5
	 — 
	Transitional provision to do with Part 1

Wayne David: I beg to move amendment 21,in schedule 5, page27,line21, at end insert—
	‘(6) The Government shall report to Parliament annually within two months of the end of the financial year on what money had been made available to local authorities to meet costs of transition to the new register and what safeguards have been put in place to make sure the money has been spent on the specified task.’.
	I will refer specifically to the amendment and then more generally to schedule 5. On the financing of individual electoral registration, our concern is whether sufficient finance is being provided. The explanatory notes that accompany the Bill indicate that:
	“A total of £108m was allocated at the Spending Review in 2010…This includes £85m resource funding in 2014/15 to fund registration officers to make contact with each potential elector individually”
	who hopes to be on the register.
	The petitioners of individual electoral registration and those who work in the field have concerns. I cite in particular the comments of the chief executive of the Association of Electoral Administrators, Mr John Turner. I know there has been discussion between the Government and the association, which I welcome. However, Mr Turner made the following important point in his written evidence to the Select Committee:
	“It is our view that the successful implementation of the new system will depend on the relevant funding going directly”—
	I emphasise the word “directly”—
	“to electoral services.”
	This is critical. He continues:
	“Any funding needs to continue post 2015 and should not simply be seen as one-off capital funding.”
	Our concern is essentially in line with his comments. We are worried, for example, that there will be insufficient resources to provide electoral registration officers with the necessary new guidance and training, particularly in respect of data management. We recognise that it will be necessary to enhance the skills and knowledge base of officers, and we are concerned that money is not provided for that. In other words, a comprehensive training re-vamp is needed, along with a comprehensive skills analysis, in order to inform the appropriate provision of training and support for electoral administrators.
	In addition, there is also the fear, as I said, that the money allocated by the Government will not eventually get through to where it is needed. We have tabled this amendment because, ideally, we would like these resources to be ring-fenced, so that the whole transition period and the implementation of a new system is properly financed with money that is guaranteed. The only way that electoral registration officers can plan effectively and do what is necessary is if they know exactly how much money is coming through.

Sheila Gilmore: One additional problem that will be faced, which has been discussed a lot in the course of the debate, is the differential involved in how various areas will find carrying out this process.
	We already know how different that can be, even within parts of an area, but certainly between different areas. We have to be confident that this will be provided for.

Wayne David: That is a good point, because one of our concerns about the Government’s approach to this legislation is that it will not be a comprehensive one right across the country. We feel that where there is a perceived need for more resources to be allocated, those resources will not, in fact, be allocated to where they are required. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that.
	That leads me to a specific question I have about the devolved institutions—the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. I made inquiries the other day with the Welsh Assembly Government as to whether or not any agreement had been reached with central Government about an appropriate allocation of resources to the Assembly, because local government is devolved. I was concerned to be told that no such agreement had been reached with the Cabinet Office. So people in Wales are not sure exactly what sum will be made available and whether or not the Welsh Assembly Government will have the ability to do what they believe is necessary within the confines of Wales. So I would welcome any comments the Minister wishes to make about Wales and Scotland.
	In the second half of my comments, I wish to refer more generally to schedule 5, which relates to the transition to the new system. The amendments that we tabled last Monday have already been discussed, but we have concerns about this schedule in particular. It is a vital part of the Bill, and we are very concerned about postal votes and the number of electors who will be on the register when the next boundary review takes place in December 2015.
	It is not my intention to repeat the arguments I used a week ago, but I would just like to make a couple of points, the first of which relates to postal votes. Strong representations on postal votes have been made by a number of organisations. I particularly wish to cite the most recent joint circular given to Members of Parliament by Mencap, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, Age Concern, Scope and Sense. Those organisations say:
	“We believe that an appropriate balance must be struck between safeguarding individual registration against electoral fraud and ensuring accessibility. We remain concerned about the risks involved in the arrangements currently in place for dealing with postal votes during the transition to IER. Postal votes are disproportionately used by disabled and older voters.”
	That is a very important point and, despite their listening exercise, the Government have not truly taken on board the points made by all those organisations which have united to speak with one voice to set out their concerns in moderate and reasonable ways.
	Those organisations have supported our amendments 18 and 19, saying that our approach
	“would give those people wishing to use postal votes time to register under the new system before the next election.”
	Our concern is that many of these postal voters will not be able to vote at the next election. The circular goes on to say that our approach
	“would have allowed for disabled and older people, who disproportionately make use of postal votes, time to familiarise themselves with the new system and ensure that they remain eligible for postal voting at the next election.”
	We strongly endorse those points.
	May I set this out in a genuine sense, through an anecdote? My mother is 86 years of age and she has a postal vote. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] She will very pleased. She has had her postal vote for many years and, as far as she was concerned, when she filled in the form to have a postal vote it was for the rest of her life. I hope that she will get through the Government’s data-matching exercise, as otherwise she will be asked to reapply for a postal vote at the ripe old age of 86—it will be a fairly detailed application, too. It is unreasonable to put such a burden on elderly people and the Government should, at the very least, ensure that the carry-over is the same as it is for other voters.
	We are not making a partisan point. A number of people have said to me that the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, owed his success in the recent mayoral election to postal votes. My point is simply that it makes sense for all of us who are concerned about democracy, participation and access for elderly and disabled people to the electoral system that they should have the same facility for postal and proxy votes as everybody else. They should not be singled out.
	My second point about schedule 5 concerns the reference to the carry-over for the boundary review of 2015, or rather to the lack of a carry-over. In the transition to IER, there is concern that the new register will be at its most vulnerable at the very start. That concern has been expressed by a number of experts and academics and reflects the experience in Northern Ireland. Concern has also been expressed by the all-party Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. It has been suggested that the lack of carry-over represents what the Electoral Commission fears most of all.
	It is most unfortunate that the Government have introduced IER before the second set of pilots, which we discussed in Committee the other day. It would have been far better if the results of those pilots had emerged and confirmed that, as we hoped, there would not be a problem. We could then all have proceeded happily. Many people have said that it is quite likely, as was the case with the first tranche of pilots, that that second tranche will show that there is a problem with IER, particularly at the start of the new system. We are concerned about that.
	To illustrate once again that we are not taking a partisan approach, let me refer to a number of other organisations and academics who have made representations. In particular, I want to point out the evidence given to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee by one of the most distinguished academics in this area, Dr Stuart Wilks-Heeg, senior lecturer in social policy at the university of Liverpool and executive director of Democratic Audit. He said:
	“If we do see a large number of people drop off the registers, even if in all likelihood they are not going to vote, that will have a profound implication for the redrawing of boundaries under the new rules that have just gone through. If there is going to be a political effect, that is where we could see it very, very significantly, because if the kind of groups we expect to drop off the register are the ones that we start to see drop off the register, it really could have profound effects for the redrawing of constituency boundaries next time round.”
	He is not grinding any political axe; that is an objective evaluation of where we are.
	Dr Wilks-Heeg referred to particular groups who were at risk of not being included in the electoral register, particularly as the new approach starts. Those groups include young people, disabled people, people from black and ethnic minorities, people in public and private rented accommodation and people who, for one reason or another to do with their lifestyle, are very mobile. If we look at the United Kingdom as a whole, we find that the greatest concentration of such people can probably be found in central London. It has already been suggested that, under the legislation passed last year, London will be under-represented. If the Bill is passed unamended, they will be further under- represented.
	Having quoted an academic, I will now quote John Turner, chief executive of the Association of Electoral Administrators—again, someone with no political axe to grind and someone with whom, commendably, the Government have been working. In his evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, he said:
	“At the risk of provoking any of you, can I also make a point about the December 2015 register? If you have that sort of drop and your friends at the Boundary Commission then have to do the next boundary review on the next system, it is going to make another major difference to the way in which parliamentary boundaries are drawn, given that the 2015 register, with these potential drops, will be that which is used to settle the new constituency boundaries for 2020.”
	There is another entirely objective view. It is notable—commendable—that, having received that sort of evidence, skilfully and objectively presented, the Committee reached a powerful conclusion regarding constituency boundaries. All hon. Members know, but I underline the fact that the Committee, although chaired by a Labour Member, is a cross-party body. It concluded:
	“For the next parliamentary constituency boundary reviews to be fair and representative, electoral registers across the country need to be at least as complete—and as consistently complete—as they are now. The Government needs to ensure that its proposals will achieve this end.
	There is a risk that the electoral registers in December 2015 will be particularly varied in their levels of completeness: this matters because they will be used under current legislation as the basis for the next boundary review. We recommend using instead the registers as they stood on or before general election day in May 2015.”
	That is a perfectly reasonable position expressed by the Select Committee. I hope that Government, given that they have rightly been congratulated on making a number of moves—perhaps even concessions—on key areas, will consider doing so again, even at this late stage.
	The strongest thing to happen now in the interests of democracy would be cross-party agreement on this important measure to modify and modernise our electoral registration system. That requires political consensus. Throughout this process, we have been more than happy to engage in dialogue with the Parliamentary Secretary. He has listened to our concerns and there has been movement on some of them, but until now, on the crucial issue of the potential impact on boundaries, the Government have decided not to listen. We are concerned not only that a number of people will not be able to vote, but that they will not be able to exercise their democratic rights in a host of different ways.

Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that this provision is the last remainder of what was essentially a gerrymandering Bill and that not removing it will affect
	the boundaries? Can he see any reason why Liberal Democrats in particular should vote for it, given that it would be one of those rare occasions when turkeys vote for Christmas?

Wayne David: My hon. Friend’s concern for the Liberal Democrats is touching, although I cannot say that I share it. To answer his first question frankly, yes, at the start of the legislative process, strong words were used, not least by me, because we were worried by the overtly and crudely partisan nature of the Bill of that time. But—and it is an important “but”—the Government modified their position. I give them credit for doing so. As my hon. Friend implies, if they have made concessions in a host of areas already, why not go the whole hog and let us have a proper consensual approach?
	I listened intently to what the Minister said in the debate on our amendments last Monday. He did not produce any convincing arguments why the timetable that we established in legislation when we were in power could not be followed, and why we need to move hastily towards the Bill. If the Government do not take heed of what we are saying from the Opposition Front Bench, let them at least take note of what many people outside the House have said—the Electoral Commission, academics and the cross-party Select Committee. Many people drawn from a range of different organisations have made the same point: this is probably the most important change to our electoral system since the advent of universal suffrage. It is far too important to be the victim of crude partisanship. We want a consensual approach that will unite all democrats.
	Finally, the Bill is important in terms of people’s ability to decide whether to cast their votes or not, but it is important in other respects as well. This underlines the civic responsibility point—people need to be on the electoral register for reasons other than to vote. One of the most important reasons is that those who are eligible for jury service are drawn from the electoral register. When we talk about the completeness of the register, we are not talking only about our democratic system and the voting system, important though it is. We are talking also about the criminal justice system and its credibility.
	We all saw the terrible riots which scarred English cities last summer. That is all the more reason to ensure that all groups in our society are effectively represented on our juries. The last thing we want is an electoral register which contains a disproportionately large number of white middle-class people who are in turn represented on the juries that are selected. That is no way to enhance the credibility of our criminal justice system.
	It is important to recognise that electoral registers are used to establish people’s creditworthiness. Whether they may have a mortgage is quite often defined by their presence on the electoral register. Also, it is seldom mentioned that the police make great use of the electoral register. It is important for the development of our society, as well as for our democracy. In a modern democracy, being on the electoral register is a civic duty and a civic responsibility. That is why we want accuracy in our electoral register. Although we all want accuracy, it is important to recognise that standing alongside it there must be completeness as well. Those are the twins that should go together in the legislation.
	Despite the debates that we have had, our concern is that the Government place far too much emphasis on accuracy at the expense of completeness. We want to see the two going together. That is important not just when we reach a fully fledged individual electoral registration system, but in the transition system. Schedule 5 is a vital part of the legislation. It takes us through the transition and ensures that when individual registration is introduced it has the support of the people of this country, including potential and actual electors. I hope that the Committee will consider the schedule carefully and give careful consideration to the amendments for which we argued passionately last Monday—
	Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, 23 May).
	The Chair put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83D)
	Amendment proposed: 20, page27,line44, leave out ‘second’ and insert ‘third’.—(Mr David.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The Committee divided:
	Ayes 206, Noes 276.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Amendment proposed: 18,page31,line6, leave out ‘first’ and insert ‘second’.—( Wayne  David.)
	Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The Committee divided:
	Ayes 205, Noes 275.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Schedule 5 agreed to.
	The occupant of the Chair left the Chair (Programme Order, 23 May).
	The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
	Progress reported; Committee to sit again tomorrow.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Immigration

That the draft Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Authority to Carry) Regulations 2012, which were laid before this House on 30 April 2012, in the previous Session of Parliament, be approved.—(Stephen Crabb .)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Data Protection

That the draft Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 14 May, be approved.—(Stephen Crabb.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Rehabilitation of Offenders

That the draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 14 May, be approved.—(Stephen Crabb.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

International Development

That the draft International Fund for Agricultural Development (Eighth Replenishment) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 14 March 2012, in the previous Session of Parliament, be approved.—(Stephen Crabb.)
	Question agreed to.

Estimates

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 145),
	That this House agrees with the Report [20 June] of the Liaison Committee.—(Stephen Crabb.)
	Question agreed to.

PETITION
	 — 
	Sunday Trading (London Olympic and Paralympic Games)

Nicholas Dakin: The petition of residents of the Scunthorpe county constituency states:
	The Petition of residents of Scunthorpe,
	Declares that the Petitioners are opposed to the changes to Sunday trading hours brought in by the Sunday Trading (London Olympic and Paralympic Games) Act, as the Petitioners believe that the changes put unfair pressure on shop workers, who value shorter working hours on Sundays as they allow people to spend more time with their families.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to bring forward legislation to reverse the changes brought in by the Sunday Trading (London Olympic and Paralympic Games) Act and ensure that Sunday Trading Regulations are not suspended during the London Olympic and Paralympic Games.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001100]

POLICING (DEVON AND CORNWALL)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Stephen Crabb.)

Dan Rogerson: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise policing in the Devon and Cornwall force area. Many people do not consider the police in detail until such time as we need to call on their support, services and advice. Complaints against the police are occasionally brought to the attention of MPs. As with all services, there is a tendency to focus on negative reports—people do not often take the trouble to come to their MP’s surgery to express their admiration and gratitude for a service—but hon. Members appreciate and are incredibly grateful for what police officers, police community support officers and police staff do in their constituencies to ensure that there is a great deterrent to crime and community engagement on tackling and resolving problems confronting that community, and that those who commit crimes are detected.
	Devon and Cornwall is the largest force area in England—it is more than 180 miles from one end to the other. Fortunately, it is also one of the safest places to live and work. Recorded crime has been low in recent years in the area compared with other parts of the country, although in recent months, there are signs of a reverse in that trend. Perhaps we can expect that at times of economic hardship—sadly, we have seen crime rise in such circumstances in the past. That reverse is at an early stage, and we must keep it under close review.

Oliver Colvile: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that Charles Cross police station in my constituency is one of the busiest police stations—if not the busiest—in the whole of England, principally because of drug and alcohol abuse?

Dan Rogerson: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point on one of the pressures on the police. That problem requires close cross-agency working, including health and social services, and local housing officers. The police have a great demand made of them from cross-agency working and they also have a huge contribution to make.
	As I was saying, Devon and Cornwall police cover a huge area. It is mix of urban areas, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out—it includes Plymouth and other larger settlements—and rural areas. Another characteristic of the force is that its officer base is at the higher end of the age profile, which is somewhat driven by the high number of transfers into the force area. That brings with it the benefit of experience and a range of skills, but it also changes the characteristics of the force. Officers have raised that with me.
	Devon and Cornwall police are highly thought of: according to studies, 68.7% of those who responded said that the force was good or excellent, placing it second out of the 42 forces, and 90% expected to be treated respectfully by the police, again putting them second. As I have said, it is also one of the safest places—in fact, in the top 10—in the country.
	We are, however, in a time of deficit reduction, and the Liberal Democrats and our Conservative coalition partners have signed up to doing the right thing, which
	is to tackle the deficit left to us by the previous Government. Sadly, no one from Her Majesty’s Opposition is with us, but they have admitted the need to tackle the deficit. Of course, though, they are now in the happy position of being able to claim that they would not make a single cut to a single service when they are being debated in isolation, while claiming that they would still tackle the deficit, if over a slightly longer period.
	The Government, on the other hand, must deal with deficit reduction as it manifests itself on the ground, which means cuts in public spending. The police service, like other services, has had to bear its share, although, as was made plain to me by officers and former officers, some feel that it has been made to take more than its share of the burden of deficit reduction. In Devon and Cornwall, as in other forces, it will mean a cut in police staff—the number of officers—and therefore in the force’s ability to deliver the full range of services they have been delivering in recent years.

Adrian Sanders: An unintended consequence that could have severe implications in Devon and Cornwall is the simultaneous cutbacks in the Ministry of Defence police force, which will put pressure on the civilian police force to move into areas that, in the past, they relied on the MOD force to police. Dartmouth is an example, and so too is Plymouth. I am extremely worried that there might be a double-whammy effect from the necessary austerity measures.

Dan Rogerson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There has been close working between MOD police and the local constabulary, and as those pressures are brought to bear on the MOD police, changes in working practice will be inevitable.
	Perhaps the cuts in Devon and Cornwall are compounded by one or two aspects of the funding formula. First, the formula does not take into account, as some other public funding formulae do, the huge influx in the number of visitors. In the summer, the population of Devon and Cornwall increases dramatically. I no longer represent the town of Newquay, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert), but I did once, and I saw at first hand the huge explosion in population. That was welcome, because of the money it brought to the local economy, but it also increased the pressure on policing.
	In the health service, bills can be re-charged to primary care trusts in the areas from which patients originate. Of course, it is not so easy for the policing formula to charge local police authorities for the work carried out on behalf of citizens who happen to be in the south-west of the United Kingdom for that period. As the Government consider police funding, however, there might be an opportunity to make the base formula take that issue into account.
	Secondly, there is the issue of the funding formula as currently constituted and its assessment of the funding level that each force should receive. As I understand it, Devon and Cornwall force could receive an extra £4.9 million were they to receive their full allocation, as one would expect, under the formula. The reason they do not is the damping mechanism, which ensures that forces seen to be overfunded do not lose out in short order on a lot of funding to benefit forces such as Devon and Cornwall in the correct manner. I would,
	however, like to see a mechanism that shows that some progress is being made on the funding due to Devon and Cornwall. If that £4.9 million were to be made available, it would equate to 100 officers, which would make a huge difference to the programme of change and to the cuts being delivered as a result of deficit reduction.
	Under the area cost adjustment, areas seen to be high cost—I could stray into the controversial topic of regional pay, but I will resist the temptation—are given extra funding. This spreads out from London as one heads westward. Sadly, it peters out around Dorset, so the Devon and Cornwall force does not benefit from area cost adjustment, whereas other forces in the south-west do. Yet again, I would suggest, there is an element of unfairness there.
	We face the challenges of policing across a diverse, geographically widespread peninsular environment, the funding for which is, sadly, deficient in a number of respects. I fully accept that this is an historic issue—it is one that this Government have inherited, but I look to them to consider some of the issues so that they might be resolved in the future.
	The cuts manifest themselves in planned cuts to the sworn officer base from 3,580 in 2010 to 2,810 in 2015—a 21.5% reduction, with 700 fewer officers. At the same time, there is a reduction in police staff of about 500. This puts pressure on the ability to deliver such services as specialist traffic police and accident investigation—not during the middle of the day, but perhaps over weekends and late at night, reducing the ability to examine the scene of an accident in detail. We could be looking at some reduction in the excellent community policing performed by the neighbourhood teams, and another stretched resource is response cover. That is particularly challenging in rural areas, as response times can be affected when areas are stretched. There are also more specialist areas of work—in diversity, for example—and there will inevitably be a reduction in the vehicle fleet infrastructure and estate. As I said earlier, we accept that some of these cuts had to come because of the strategy for dealing with deficit reduction. It is important, however, to look at how we can support the chief constable and those who have to deal with these issues on the ground.
	It would be fair to say that, because of the financial challenges, police morale is pretty low. They are doing a fantastic job, but they are concerned about the future of the service and about their own careers. A few months ago, I attended a meeting in Launceston—I pronounce it that way for the benefit of those taking notes of our proceedings—and more recently in Bodmin, when I had discussions with a number of officers who work on the front line. They are feeling it pretty hard at the moment. They are concerned about the level of reduction in the number of officers and about one or two other changes under consideration at the moment and how they might impact on them.
	Let me refer briefly to the pensions issue; it is not my main focus this evening, but as with those working in public services elsewhere, this is a matter of concern—particularly to officers who have served for some time and are worried that things might change during their period of service. With the Winsor review in mind, there is concern about pay, particularly about how a mechanism based on incremental points and length of service is
	going to be changed, while a skills threshold will also be introduced. For someone at the top of the constable scale, that could represent a reduction in pay if they do not qualify for the skills threshold. In the longer term, there is the problem of moving towards a different framework, while those serving for some time are also worried about possible loss of earnings through a structural change that does not reflect their policing career and their abilities.

George Eustice: Police officers have raised such concerns with me as well. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he disagrees with the Winsor proposals, or does he accept that such measures are necessary to modernise and reform the police force and make it more responsive to the needs of today?

Dan Rogerson: I bow to the hon. Gentleman’s understanding. He may be more of an expert on these issues than I am. However, I have been guided by discussions with serving officers, among whom there is a range of opinion. Some feel strongly that the status quo should continue, while others are open and sympathetic to change as long as it reflects performance and the reality with which they live from day to day. They fear that the proposed reforms may not entirely pass that test. I wanted to share the views of those local officers with the House for the Minister’s benefit.
	One issue that has been brought to my attention is that of the starting salary, which will rise as a trainee moves towards becoming a constable, but may still be lower—at least at the beginning—than that of a police community support officer. Points have been made about their respective roles. There is also the issue of unsocial hours. It has been pointed out to me that the new way of rewarding officers for working at night may create perverse incentives. For example, officers who had been rostered to do evening work for which they were to have been be rewarded might be worse off if some of those hours were shifted to the daytime so that they could make a court appearance. That strikes me as a rather strange state of affairs.
	We are understandably asking the police service, as we are asking other public services, to bear down on cost and deliver the most efficient service possible, and to deal with cuts in numbers. We should ensure that other changes that we are calling on the service to make at the same time pass the test—that they constitute the most efficient use of resources, that they will provide incentives and rewards for good performance, and that they will not act as a disincentive and further undermine the morale of the service.
	The key points that I hope that the Minister will take on board relate to funding. The damping mechanism means that some areas are being overfunded and some underfunded, a process with which we are all too familiar in Devon and Cornwall in the context of other public services. There is also the issue of the area cost adjustment versus the huge costs of delivering a service across a rural area such as ours.
	Given all the changes that we are asking police forces to make in order to bring about some kind of modernisation of the service, I should like to be reassured that we are listening closely to those on the ground who will have to live with those changes, so that we maintain their trust
	and good will. We are very fortunate to have a band of officers who are committed, who want to make a real difference in their communities, and who want to protect the public and community safety. I hope that when we reach the end of this period of change, we shall have a police service that is fit for purpose and does the best that it possibly can with the resources that we are able to give it, but which also motivates its members to give of their best.

Nick Herbert: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) on securing the debate. I note that, while my hon. Friend has been here to speak with conviction about the importance of local policing and his own police force, supported by others on our side of the Chamber, no Labour Members are present on either the Front or the Back Benches to take part in this short debate.
	My hon. Friend began by referring to the importance of the police service, and the importance of ensuring that its members—both staff and officers, as he made clear—feel appreciated. I strongly agree. It is important that this House constantly repeats that we value the British police service, that it is, indeed, the finest service in the world, and that we appreciate the role police officers play—which we do. It is also true that, as my hon. Friend recognised, we are having to take some difficult decisions to deal with the economic deficit, and policing must play its part. I will come on to that.
	My hon. Friend made it clear that the Devon and Cornwall force can be proud of the fact that it is delivering for local people one of the lowest crime rates in the country. It has, in fact, the fourth lowest crime rate of all forces in England and Wales. That is not to say that there are not particular challenges, including the more recent ones to which my hon. Friend referred. It remains true that Devon and Cornwall is a relatively safe place to live, however, and that is thanks to the work of the police force and its partner agencies that help to deliver reductions in crime. It is also true that the force is highly thought of. It has higher satisfaction rates than other forces. Those who work in the Devon and Cornwall force can be proud of that.
	Police forces have to play their part in our effort to reduce the deficit, and Devon and Cornwall is no exception. We have had to reduce central funding for police forces by 20% in real terms over the four years of the spending review, but it is important to note that not all funding for the police service comes from that central fund; some of it comes from local sources, and the police authority increased the precept by 2% for this year. Were the precept to continue to increase for the next two years—that will in future be for the elected police and crime commissioner for Devon and Cornwall to decide—the real reduction in resources would be 14%, or about 5.5% in cash terms. That is a challenging reduction, but it is manageable. Even if the precept were not increased, the real reduction would be 16%, so it is not a 20% reduction, as some have claimed. No force in England is suffering that level of reduction in funding, in fact.
	Forces must find ways to make that reduction in spending while protecting the quality of their service. The Devon and Cornwall force is determined to do
	that. It has made a particular commitment to try to protect neighbourhood policing, which is highly valued by the public. That is a visible and available form of policing, in which Devon and Cornwall has to make some progress in comparison with other forces.
	My hon. Friend said that police officers feel they are contributing more than their fair share in dealing with the deficit. I do not accept that. Savings have had to be made across the public sector, including in services with which the police work. Police officers will therefore be aware that other services have had to contribute savings. None of these decisions is easy, but the national priority must be to reduce the deficit, which this Government are successfully doing.
	It is true that the reduction in spending in Devon and Cornwall will mean a reduction in police numbers. That is not desirable, of course. None of us wants police forces to have to reduce police numbers—albeit from a peak, it must be said. That is a reality, however. Every force is seeking to ensure that those reductions do not impinge on the front-line service.
	It is pleasing that the senior leadership of the force are clear that they are determined to maintain that quality of service provision. Indeed, I note that on 12 March, the assistant chief constable of Devon and Cornwall, Paul Netherton, said:
	“We have delivered an even better service than before, and we are getting to more jobs faster than before. In terms of service to the public, we have improved, despite having to deal with the consequences of a very challenging budget situation.”
	It is important that that service quality be maintained, but it is also important that crime continues to be tackled. My hon. Friend rightly drew attention to his concern that there were signs that crime has increased over recent months in Devon and Cornwall, and the latest official figures showed a slight increase. That is in contrast to the majority of forces in England and Wales, so it is not possible to link that increase with the reduction in force numbers and police numbers, because that has happened to other forces as well, yet they have continued to reduce crime.
	Devon and Cornwall know that they face a challenge and that they need to get back on top of crime and deliver the reductions in crime that we saw in the previous three years. At a time when the force is restructuring, yes, that is challenging, but the force’s senior leadership and everybody who works in it know that they have to rise to that challenge. We will expect the elected police and crime commissioner representing the people of Devon and Cornwall from November to attend to that in ensuring that the force’s past performance is restored.
	I should note that of those forces that are most similar to Devon and Cornwall—so there is a fair size comparison—Cambridgeshire, for example, has experienced
	a 5.4% fall in police officer numbers, which is about the same as Devon and Cornwall, but it successfully delivered a 9% reduction in crime in the last year. Wiltshire has reduced overall crime by 5%, while at the same time officer numbers fell by 5.9%. So it can be done, and it is being done by other forces. Of course, the circumstances of each force are different, but it is important that that performance be maintained.
	My hon. Friend mentioned the various issues relating to the funding formula. Other forces make the point about visitors and I am certainly willing to have a look at that, although it might be difficult to adjust the funding formula and to work out how that could be done. However, this issue does affect other forces as well.

Tessa Munt: Will the Minister give way?

Nick Herbert: I am afraid I have only two minutes left, if my hon. Friend will forgive me.
	On damping, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall mentioned, the Government are consulting stakeholders about our decisions on damping for the final two years of this spending review period. Devon and Cornwall should make their representations known, if they have not already done so; they have until 29 June. We are looking at this issue and there are some forces, such as Devon and Cornwall, that lose through the damping process, while others gain. These are therefore very difficult decisions to take, but our long-term ambition remains to move away from the application of damping towards the full application of the formula, which would be fair and right. The question is how to do that in a fair manner when there have to be spending reductions for forces.
	Overall, Devon and Cornwall have a spend of £181 per head of population, including central costs, which is similar to the forces’ peer average of £178. So overall, the force is not losing in terms of spend.
	On the morale of police officers, we are committed to ensuring that police officers remain the best paid among the emergency services—and so they should be, reflecting the unique nature of the job they do—and committed to valuing police officers. We will ensure that changes are negotiated properly, and the Government will follow the proper negotiating procedures and ensure that we treat officers fairly and value them as we should. My hon. Friend said that we are fortunate to have the policing and the police service that we do in this country, and so we are, not least in Devon and Cornwall.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned .